Posts

The Arch of Knowledge

Image
I borrowed the title of this blog from a book by the late David Oldroyd (1936-2014). The major theme of the book is a reference to the ancient idea of a two-fold pathway to knowledge: analysis, from observation to general first principles, and synthesis, deduction from those principles back to observables.  I think that keeping in mind this framework will help us make sense of the various knowledge dimensions in the current debate around and beyond the role of the philosophy of science.  The whole history of modern philosophy of science is primarily the history of the working out of the implications of severing from this arch one of the legs or the coping-stone.  Let's see an example taken by Oldroyd. Enter Popper. He has basically proposed, for the left leg, to take a run and jump, that is to say, you formulate hypotheses as it were by guesswork and test by experiment the conclusions that flow deductively from these. This method virtually ignores the ascending side of the arch by

Anything Stove - Part 0

Image
"Much more is known now than was known fifty years ago, and much more was known then than in 1580. So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years." David C. Stove initiated a potent critique of a particular approach to the philosophy of science, challenging the rational tenability of some prominent figures from the 20th century. I hold great respect for the late David Stove, and I would like to dedicate the next few posts to him, as I delve into his work Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists . To be precise, this will not be a book review. Instead, I intend to focus on what I perceive as strong criticisms of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend. I aim to construct a more systematic critique of the prevailing philosophical trends in science that emerged at the beginning of the last century.  Heads-up. I don't mind his polemical tone, some may even say that the book was not a scholarly piece of work. I don't.