Is The Science of Science As A Field of Study In Its Own Right Alive Or Dead?
dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US
Sun Feb 16 22:32:51 EST 2014
I am not sure that anyone is working on the specific problem that you are interested in, whatever it is, but it does not follow that we have given up on the science of science. The field is quite robust and you cannot simply define it away. Unfortunately I cannot understand what you are looking for, so I cannot help you. Perhaps others here can.
If you are looking for the analytic essence of science I suppose Carnap's "Introduction" is as good a place to start as any. See http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Science-Rudolf-Carnap/dp/0486283186/ref=la_B001HCU3KC_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392602506&sr=1-2.
But sciences really do not have essences, including the science of science. They are defined by their subject matter and our approach to that. Science is what science studies and what scientists think and do. That is where Kuhn comes in.
On Feb 16, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Clifford Miller <cliffordmiller at CLIFFORDMILLER.COM> wrote:
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> Thank you.
> Might you be able to help by suggesting as a starting point an author and a work in the philosophy of science which addresses a core of a science of science, please? I will then be able to look it up on The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] which will then cite other works and authors.
> Popper's attempts to establish criteria for demarcation of science from for example, Marxism, were [as I understand it] not successful. I understand debate continued as to whether Marxism was a part of science or a theory of a political philosophy.
> Is it the position now that a consequence of the failure of demarcation that everyone has given up attempting to identify, categorise and classify what qualifies as science and hence given up on a science of science? If not, might you also be able to assist please by suggesting an author and a work I can look up on SEP which addresses identification, categorisation and classification of difference kinds of knowledge?
> Whether or not one agrees physics and political science are both sciences, it is still helpful to understand the nature of the various brands of knowledge being offered and what makes them different from each other. In other words, should we not give up trying to understand the nature of what is being proferred to us as knowledge [science]?
> However, as far as I can see so far, that is what has happened. Or is that wrong?
More information about the SIGMETRICS