metacristi said:
Yes it's clear that we must end our conversation here,I think it is useless to continue,we have a problem of language too important from the beginning
It's only a problem insofar as you continue the insults. I'm glad you've refrained in your goodbye speech, at least.
it's not at all evident that all concepts are theory laden
Instead, this is a standard remark in the philosophy of science. I know, because i found it in a book.
I'd say rather that no,why else Lakatos (pity that he died too early) and others argued and some still argue rightly for the existence of a method,in spite of Feyerabend.
At least we agree about Lakatos.
The problem here - yet again - is that you declare things to be so without offering any justification at all; saying that the arguments proceed "rightly" cooks the books before I've even objected. Others, like Dupre, Cartwright, Galison, to name but a few, have noted what you cannot; namely, that denying the existence of a single method does not imply anarchism at all. Instead, it could be that science is far too complex to be accounted for without the plurality of methodologies that we actually see if - ironically enough, given this thread to date - we
look instead of theorising.
I don't think you have really succeeded of proving my view incoherent or inferior you did not even understood it
I understand well enough, but see no reason to accept this epistemological privilege when you have used it in your arguments, smuggling it in implicitly beforehand. In any case, my objection was never that it was incoherent or inferior, so i don't know where you're getting this stuff. Either you misunderstood (perhaps my fault) or these are more straw men.
(evidently I still accept that I might also not have understood all your points because of language difference)
*shrug* You could ask for clarification before insulting me, i guess.
but I don't think your point of view is dominant.On the contrary.Not even among philosophers of science.
What "point of view" am i espousing, exactly?
Currently we do not have an infinity of equally valid sciences,we have a single science
Here is your problem: we do not have a "single science" and the talk in the philosophy of science these days is about the
disunity of science (i know, because i read it in a book). I suggest you look at Galison's collection of papers for an introduction, if you're interested.
When someone propose as being equally valid (making thus a positive claim) a system that contains in its core some extra assumptions they must either respect the above mentioned basic requirements of the scientific method by providing some sufficient reasons in its favor or propose an equal alternative method of establishing what is real,not containing at least one of the basic requirements.
To begin with, i haven't proposed such a system and called it equally valid; instead, I've time and again asked why an epistemological privilege should be granted to your naive empiricism. The example of the Homeric gods was provided to ask why those gods stand on a different epistemological footing to quarks, to give you a chance to show why your privilege should allow me to choose quarks instead of gods for some reason or other.
In the second place, it isn't at all obvious that anyone interested in this question should allow you to smuggle in an epistemological privilege
a priori, as you have here:
why should we privilege the scientific method, so-called, when the issue here is precisely to ask why this privilege should be granted to start with? Even if i were to fit your mischaracterisation and declare an alternative epistemology equally valid, we judge the two by some means of comparison -
not by assuming the one to be priviledged and asking the other to match up to it. You are assuming the result beforehand in order to justify it, which isn't cricket.
I won't attack the sniff of parsimony i smell here for now...
The basic requirements of the actual scientific method(s) I presented above have a strong empirical support over all other proposed,they cannot be let aside,a fact proved by the clear superiority of scientific knowledge over the so called 'common truths'
Nonsense. How do we decide what "superiority" means in this context? It won't do to say that the scientific method, so-called, has empirical support because that again assumes what is to be proven; namely, that it gets at reality while other methodologies do not.
a fact that can be sustained on empirical grounds using the bayesian interpretation of probabilities.
If you had read any philosophy of science, you'd know that Bayesian analysis is subject to severe skepticism.
as I've said I've read once that he defended his position by saying that he does not defend the total anarchy position.
Why don't you read his own works instead of mischaracterising them? I promise i won't insult you for getting information out of a book, even though i was fair game on that charge.
If,by accepting the basic requirements of the scientific method(s),some of those new predictions,using the soul as a fruitful construct,would be testable at physical levels and confirmed experimentally (considering also some possible auxiliary assumptions regarding the measurement devices used) then I would be entitled to claim that my research program has epistemological privilege on empirical grounds.Otherwise no.
Wrong again. You cannot grant an epistemological privilege on the basis of scientific method or the demarcation criteria you offer here without first explaining why we should accept
their epistemological priviledge. That is what you
still have failed to do.
Whatever the case, i thank you for an interesting discussion. I hope you will refrain from insult next time, as i sincerely hope we'll cross paths again.