50 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
50 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# Against Method: study against logical positivism
|
|
|
|
Word: I should note that this is written while reading through Feyeraband's essay. Henceforth expect knee-jerk-reaction type of writing as opposed to well thought out logical anything.
|
|
|
|
Anything properly _fleshed out_ is labeled as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Observations & Connections Based on Recent Things Around Me
|
|
|
|
A video from _Periodic Videos_ comes to mind wherein they tells a story about someone that tried to make a _mini-nuclear reactor_ in their kitchen.
|
|
The tone of the speaker in the video is in some ways mocking the guy for trying to do this in their own home and not in a lab.
|
|
Some believe that he [reactor-guy] was trying to split atoms and so he used some elements in a mix but it went wrong and blew up his stove-top.
|
|
|
|
> _What if he made a great discovery?_
|
|
|
|
When asked about this the speaker [speaker-guy] mentions that reactor-bro shouldn't be doing this in his home because its not safe and could kill him (reminder that battery engineers complain the same about home power cell diy'ers [see: muh safety argument]).
|
|
|
|
There's also random clips of nuclear testing demonstrations from the 50's which are seemingly randomly thrown in as if to insinuate that reactor-bro was trying to make or bomb or could have _nuked'd_ himeself.
|
|
It seems a bit out of place and weird.
|
|
|
|
PDF2LEFT: states about the epistemological doctrine of classical scientists in history: "who works in a particular historical situation must learn how to recognize error and how to live with it". Going on to say that they need a "_theory of error_ in addition to the _certain and infallible_ rules which define the approach to the truth.
|
|
Further: To develop a theory of error is to create an (likely unchanging) _theory of error_ is to riddle that same theory with historically sourced error.
|
|
In other words the theory itself is not free from the very thing that it describes as a problem to scientific development. [see observational bias, infinitesimal regression or observation]
|
|
|
|
## Something about a form of indoctrination I thought was cool
|
|
|
|
> Almost everyone now agrees that what looks like a result of reason - the mastery of a language, the existence of a richly articulated
|
|
perceptual world, logical ability - is due partly to indoctrination, partly a to a process of growth that proceeds with the force of natural low
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Breaking the rules of classical epistemology
|
|
|
|
> We find, then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other.
|
|
|
|
Hmm
|
|
|
|
> Such violations are no accidental
|
|
|
|
hmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
> they are not the results of insufficient knowledge or of inattention which might have been avoided
|
|
|
|
!
|
|
|
|
> On the contrary, we see that they are necessary for progress
|
|
|
|
Proress in this case really means "knowledge".
|
|
I'm choosing to interpret this using Bloom's method of describing understanding. New discoveries don't always give us comprehensions as we've really only uncovered an apparant fact.
|
|
Comprehension, understanding, and intuition come later after some time.
|