MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

TimMason · 06-08-2010, 05:17 AM

Hello

I think Popper has slipped out of the top ten philosophers of science by now. He was trying to draw hard and fast lines between science, on the one hand, and other ways of looking at the world, and that is very difficult to do. Back in the late 60s, when I was quite interested in all this, I recall thinking that Paul Feyerabend had cooked Popper's goose for him. He argued that, on the one hand, if you look at how scientists actually come up with their discoveries, falsification is not that big a concern, and that on the other hand, philosophers have no business laying down the law for scientists, who are quite capable of making their own way. That seemed to chime with Polanyi's claim that all scientific knowledge is, in its conception, personal knowledge that arises in the scientist's search for reality. I recently decided to look at this stuff again and picked up Samir Okasha's 'Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction'. Popper gets very little mention, and neither Feyerabend nor Polanyi get into the index at all, so I guess I must have been wasting my time back in the day.

If you are interested in the history of Christianity, you might want to look at Diarmaid MacCulloch's recently published book of that title. I've got it in a digital edition (expensive, but it's a very heavy book!) and I'v been finding it very readable indeed. MacCulloch is not a believer, but he is sympathetic to Christianity (as he says, on the male side his immediate ancestors had been Anglican pastors for three generations, and he was brought up in a vicarage), but he brings out the contradictions and hesitations very well. He actually begins the story in Greece, as he argues that most of the early Christians, and in particular Paul, were as much influenced by Greek philosophy as they were by Judaism. Obviously the Greeks had a profound influence on later developments.

Simon Critchley is perhaps a little too much of a deconstructionist to endear himself to American philosophers - although I guess he'd get a good hearing in a French department. I found his book on Comedy OK, but not particularly earth-shattering. His videos are quite fun to watch.

I think my own favourite philosophers right now are Ian Hacking (because I'm reading his "The Social Construction of What?") and Galen Strawson because he argues for panpsychism, which fills me with happy laughter.

06-08-2010, 05:17 AM	#85
TimMason Big Ears Posts: 191 Karma: 2229 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Pontoise, France Device: Onyx Boox 60, iPad	Hello I think Popper has slipped out of the top ten philosophers of science by now. He was trying to draw hard and fast lines between science, on the one hand, and other ways of looking at the world, and that is very difficult to do. Back in the late 60s, when I was quite interested in all this, I recall thinking that Paul Feyerabend had cooked Popper's goose for him. He argued that, on the one hand, if you look at how scientists actually come up with their discoveries, falsification is not that big a concern, and that on the other hand, philosophers have no business laying down the law for scientists, who are quite capable of making their own way. That seemed to chime with Polanyi's claim that all scientific knowledge is, in its conception, personal knowledge that arises in the scientist's search for reality. I recently decided to look at this stuff again and picked up Samir Okasha's 'Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction'. Popper gets very little mention, and neither Feyerabend nor Polanyi get into the index at all, so I guess I must have been wasting my time back in the day. If you are interested in the history of Christianity, you might want to look at Diarmaid MacCulloch's recently published book of that title. I've got it in a digital edition (expensive, but it's a very heavy book!) and I'v been finding it very readable indeed. MacCulloch is not a believer, but he is sympathetic to Christianity (as he says, on the male side his immediate ancestors had been Anglican pastors for three generations, and he was brought up in a vicarage), but he brings out the contradictions and hesitations very well. He actually begins the story in Greece, as he argues that most of the early Christians, and in particular Paul, were as much influenced by Greek philosophy as they were by Judaism. Obviously the Greeks had a profound influence on later developments. Simon Critchley is perhaps a little too much of a deconstructionist to endear himself to American philosophers - although I guess he'd get a good hearing in a French department. I found his book on Comedy OK, but not particularly earth-shattering. His videos are quite fun to watch. I think my own favourite philosophers right now are Ian Hacking (because I'm reading his "The Social Construction of What?") and Galen Strawson because he argues for panpsychism, which fills me with happy laughter.