[Politricks]

Are there any good books on the philosophy on science? Also, I've never studied philosophy before, so it has to be an introductory book for people new to the topic.

[D.R.E]

Here.

[Rhadamanthus]

Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery if you want to go really in depth (pdf here).

An introductory book would be one of the Very Short Introduction books.

Edit: Beaten to it on the last one.

[D.R.E]

Beat you to it!

[kka25]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery if you want to go really in depth (pdf here).

An introductory book would be one of the Very Short Introduction books.
.

Thank you
*Reading it on my eReader now

Would you care to elaborate a bit on which one of the two above is your favorite and which chapter you really enjoy reading? I'd be very grateful if you could share this info

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by kka25)
Thank you
*Reading it on my eReader now

Would you care to elaborate a bit on which one of the two above is your favorite and which chapter you really enjoy reading? I'd be very grateful if you could share this info

Well I'm passed introductory material mostly, so I obviously prefer Karl Popper since he's challenging and had a large impact. You're welcome for the recommendation.

[AntisthenesDogger]

As other have said; Karl Popper is the best bet for a more detailed "philosophy" of scientific inquiry.

Pay specific attention to how he addresses the philosophical epistemology problem of induction (as propositioned by Sextus Empericus and David Hume) though whether you accept his proposition or not is subjectively your own view.

[kka25]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Well I'm passed introductory material mostly, so I obviously prefer Karl Popper since he's challenging and had a large impact. You're welcome for the recommendation.

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
As other have said; Karl Popper is the best bet for a more detailed "philosophy" of scientific inquiry.

Pay specific attention to how he addresses the philosophical epistemology problem of induction (as propositioned by Sextus Empericus and David Hume) though whether you accept his proposition or not is subjectively your own view.

I've glanced through the book, but just a quicky question for the readers of Propper; did he discuss on the value of empirical data? e.g is empirical data very valuable to Science or is empirical data very valuable in the peruse of facts? or the questions of whether Social Science such as Psychology is Science, etc?

[AntisthenesDogger]

He discusses it briefly. He was an advocate, and furthered key pillars of what constitutes reliable empirical information. Testifiability, falsifiable etc.

He was anti-psychiatry as anyone should be, he never spoke specifically about social science, as the definition has switched in our time (though he would be progressively against it) and he wasn't a fan of psychology.

[kka25]

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
He discusses it briefly. He was an advocate, and furthered key pillars of what constitutes reliable empirical information. Testifiability, falsifiable etc.

He was anti-psychiatry as anyone should be, he never spoke specifically about social science, as the definition has switched in our time (though he would be progressively against it) and he wasn't a fan of psychology.

Ah, thank you; I shall look into it.

Curious; what's your opinion on the those things?;the value of empirical data e.g is empirical data very valuable to Science or is empirical data very valuable in the peruse of facts? or the questions of whether Social Science such as Psychology is Science, etc?

Very interested to know your views in this

[AntisthenesDogger]

(Original post by kka25)
Ah, thank you; I shall look into it.

Curious; what's your opinion on the those things?;the value of empirical data e.g is empirical data very valuable to Science or is empirical data very valuable in the peruse of facts? or the questions of whether Social Science such as Psychology is Science, etc?

Very interested to know your views in this

Social science certainly is not a science. Psychology has branches that act as so, but I'm not a great enthusiast of psychology.

Empirical data is valuable in science and in the search for falsifiable facts. Par that I sort of follow some form of Pyrrhonism.

[kka25]

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
Social science certainly is not a science. Psychology has branches that act as so, but I'm not a great enthusiast of psychology.

Empirical data is valuable in science and in the search for falsifiable facts. Par that I sort of follow some form of Pyrrhonism.

Regarding Social Science and Empirical Data, I've *heard* that questionnaires are a part of Social Science, therefore the (real) Sciences shouldn't be using it to gather data. But then again, questionnaires are also a part of Statistics, and could be analyzed and viewed using techniques that are called Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis, which is a part of Statistics; these are used to represent evidence, or if I'm correct, empirical evidence. So, is it invalid, in your opinion, for the real Science to use questionnaires to gather evidence if the latter is a part of a Social science technique?

[AntisthenesDogger]

No they're not.

I know this is an appeal to authority, but ask anyone that studies any science formally, or has a degree. They will tell you the same thing.

[kka25]

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
No they're not.

I know this is an appeal to authority, but ask anyone that studies any science formally, or has a degree. They will tell you the same thing.

You mean, they are not invalid? They could be used in the Sciences?

[AntisthenesDogger]

(Original post by kka25)
You mean, they are not invalid? They could be used in the Sciences?

No they are not valid. They can't be used. It's heuristic, not empirical.

[kka25]

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
No they are not valid. They can't be used. It's heuristic, not empirical.

Hurm...

But there are so many of these 'heuristic' methods that are being used in the Sciences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(engineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(function)

And isn't a questionnaire can be used as an empirical evidence? Empirical itself means:

"derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known""

I'm confused

[AntisthenesDogger]

Engineering isn't a science in the format of what you're asking. Physics, Biology, Chemistry three broad denominations do not use heuristics for evidence or confirmation of theories, they use empirical data.

And honestly if you can't work out why heuristic use in evidence based subjects is negative of their premise. Well there's not much point discussing it.

[kka25]

(Original post by AntisthenesDogger)
Engineering isn't a science in the format of what you're asking. Physics, Biology, Chemistry three broad denominations do not use heuristics for evidence or confirmation of theories, they use empirical data.

And honestly if you can't work out why heuristic use in evidence based subjects is negative of their premise. Well there's not much point discussing it.

Wow... this itself negates Science...

Thanks though.