3.0 KiB
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.