Qualcuno sa se Roberto Luti si esibirà in Italia quest'estate? 🇮🇹
Posts by Scott Berman
Esiste un cantante italiano chi canta come Otis Redding o una cantante italiana chi canta come Etta James? Qualcuno che canta con anima? 🇮🇹
Qualcuno sa se Roberto Luti si esibirà in Italia quest'estate?
Esiste un cantante italiano chi canta come Otis Redding o una cantante italiana chi canta come Etta James? Qualcuno che canta con anima?
Ah, che peccato. Perché pensi che sia così?
🇮🇹 Chi sono oggi gli intellettuali pubblici in Italia che sono antifascisti come Gramsci?
Qualche fan del Lecce calcio su BlueSky? 🇮🇹
🇮🇹 Si trova a Torre dell'Orso o nella stessa città di Lecce?
OK, I think I found your email address and I emailed you. Let me know if you didn't get anything from me? Thanks in advance.
Great! What’s your email address? Thank you!
“poverty rates had grown rapidly under Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s”. Working harder is not the answer. It’s the system.
From my son:
Him: I think your job is safe dad!
"You: Greek philosopher starting with M
ChatGPT: The Greek philosopher whose name starts with "M" is likely to be Parmenides."
#philsky #ancientbluesky
Yeah, not a fan of conceptual analysis either.
I completely agree that arm-chair philosophy which tries to discover the truth about the world or the truth about how we discover the truth about the world just by examining their intuitions or by analyzing the concepts our language makes available to us can be safely ignored.
I presumed that people who do phil.sci now are putting forward such ideas due to their reasoning about how science has been successfully done and that is what they came up with as to what all successful science has in common. As an hypothesis. No?
Ah, OK, so your real target are the theories of science that are a priori and not a posteriori. Is that it? I'm totally with you there. I guess I didn't know that people who put forward mechanism, say, as an essential feature of science were doing that w/o looking at the practice of science.
(Are we talking about what used to be called the demarcation problem? Very much appreciate your helping me understanding the idea better!)
And we can decide to add additional ways to that set given that science is necessarily (!!) open-ended.
Sounds like you are saying that there is a set of ways of doing scientific research such that if some way of doing research is from that set, then it is scientific. But none of those ways is necessary, just sufficient. But it is necessary that the way of doing research being within that set.
Also, haven't we discovered some ways of reasoning that are bad and so should be excluded?
Gaut argues similarly about art. There is a set of properties such that if something has a sufficient number of them then it is art. But none of them are necessary. It is just necessary that the thing have some from that set, though the set does expand given that art is necessarily (!!) open-ended.
Could there be a substantive scientific theory about what science is? Or no? If yes, then the theories being put forward could get better like every other scientific theory. Perhaps you think that theories about science are discontinuous with substantive scientific theories?
@foodit.skyfleet.blue mi dispiace per questo:
(Thanks for the clarification, by the way!)