No Robots

In this book, they are assigned to the logical positivist school of philosophy of science.

Solo

Critter indeed: the gentleman on the south end of the centipede preaches (based on Popper's obsession with Hume's distrust of inductive reasoning) that there is no science since all existing scientific theories are in the process of being falsified, and therefore creationism might as well be taught in biology classes alongside evolution.

Jiri

No Robots

From the criticism against the positivistic philosophy of science, it has been established that the context of discovery dealing with origin, evolution, and acceptance or rejection of theories should be a legitimate and essential concern of the philosophy of science.... The most important consequence of this change to the philosophy of science is serious attention given to the dynamics of scientific growth and persistence and thus to the history and sociology of science. After logical positivism authors such as Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Laudan and others contributed to this new stream.—The Soul Of The German Historical School: Methodological Essays on Schmoller, Weber and Schumpeter (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Yūichi Shionoya, p.138.

Solo

I have no issue with the proposition that the logical toolset that scientists and historians use could and should be scrutinized by philosophy of science. Windschuttle however, following the critique of Popper's relativism by David Stove (Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists (or via: amazon.co.uk) * , 1982), argues persuasively that in modern logical positivism, the logical relationships of scientific propositions become hopelessly enmeshed with issues of their diffusion and acceptance - W. says: 'There is a constant state of elision from one kind of statement to the other. [Their] radical scepticism derives from their attempt to resolve questions of logical value by appealing to matters of historical fact.....All of those who support this radical sceptical position, Stove argues, are guilty of using logical words but depriving them of their logical meaning by embedding them in epistemic context about scientists'. That leads to the fusion of philosophy of science and sociology of science. Questions of what is true (or closest to true) and how we know become questions of who agrees with what, when and for what motives.

As the two disciplines marry in academia, speech and thought will divorce. Methinks....at any rate, I need to re-read my Cassirer.

Jiri

* - mod note - retitled as Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a Postmodern Cult

No Robots

I do not speak to the merits of the arguments of these writers. I only indicate that they are indeed generally considered to comprise a school of thought, as even Stove attests.

Peter Kirby

Saying that they are a school is like saying that Socrates-Plato-Aristotle-Pyrrho comprise a school. With a nod to South Park fans everywhere, "THAT DOES...NOT...MAKE SENSE."

aa5874

But they can't find any credible evidence, so in principle it is very difficult to demonstrate the HJ position.

No Robots

The point is that all these writers were concerned with debunking the conceit that science is based on pure inductive empirical observation. Constantin Brunner argues the same point, observing that:

Newton deduced gravitation from Kepler's laws, and these were what he thought of. And Kepler? Do you know what Kepler said when he was pressed to indicate how he had discovered his laws of revolution? He answered: 'I guessed them!' That was a fine reply then, and even today, against all the empirico-simpletons and research-boosters who go about puffing experience as truth. Let them all be reminded of Kepler as one of the great architects of science who know well how the house is built and think of it not as do the hodcarriers.—Constantin Brunner, Science, spirit, superstition, p. 214.