This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Janes blunder

8 posts in this topic

Posted

The following is from the 1942 edition of James Janes "Physics and Philosophy," chapter 2, How do we Know?

"In the period we have been considering, science claimed only one source of knowledge of the facts and objects of the ourter worlk, namely the impressions they make on the mind through the medium of the senses. Yet the untrustworthiness of the senses had been one of the commonplaces of philosophy from Greek times on, and if the same facts and objects of the outer world mad different impressions on different minds, where did science stant?"

"These difficulties are non-existent to the modern physicist, who can trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information,..."

How could a man with such unquestionable understanding of philosophic issues make such an astonishingly simple mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ourter worlk ...mad ....stant?"

..[snipped] ....How could a man with such unquestionable understanding of philosophic issues make such an astonishingly simple mistake?

Not only is his scientism naive, apparently he can't spell either. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ourter worlk ...mad ....stant?"

..[snipped] ....How could a man with such unquestionable understanding of philosophic issues make such an astonishingly simple mistake?

Not only is his scientism naive, apparently he can't spell either. :rofl:

I have to confess to having typed this from a PDF file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

All kidding aside, do you have anything more substantial than this complaint? Not only should you have run a spell check out of respect for someone else's writings, you also need to put in more effort than this drive by post.

/Mod hat off

Edited by Campanella
busted by the grammar police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All kidding aside, do you have anything more substantial than this complaint? Not only should have you run a spell check out of respect of someone else's writings, you also need to put in more effort than this drive by post.

/Mod hat off

That's "should you have" and "respect for".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The following is from the 1942 edition of James Janes "Physics and Philosophy," chapter 2, How do we Know?

[snip]

"These difficulties are non-existent to the modern physicist, who can trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information,..."

Not sure why you gave two separate quotes, nor what your beef is?

The modern scientist CAN trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information, which he can then interpret in a biased and subjective way. The problem is in the scientist's head, not the instruments.

Or was that what you were trying to suggest? It helps if you actually say what you think the error is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The following is from the 1942 edition of James Janes "Physics and Philosophy," chapter 2, How do we Know?

[snip]

"These difficulties are non-existent to the modern physicist, who can trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information,..."

Not sure why you gave two separate quotes, nor what your beef is?

The modern scientist CAN trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information, which he can then interpret in a biased and subjective way. The problem is in the scientist's head, not the instruments.

Or was that what you were trying to suggest? It helps if you actually say what you think the error is.

I'm sorry, I thought the problem was self-evident, i.e. "instruments" are merely an extension of the human sensory apparatus and, thus, do not escape the problems of Empiricist epistemology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

All kidding aside, do you have anything more substantial than this complaint? Not only should you have run a spell check out of respect for someone else's writings, you also need to put in more effort than this drive by post.

/Mod hat off

I guess this was just an overflowing of the frustration I'm experiencing seeing Richard Dawkins, et al, making their naive claims of "evidence" based knowledge every time I glance at U Tube.

I find it hard to believe that such "reputable" scientists can be unaquainted with the general philosophical problems related to Empiricism, e.g. David Hume, as well as the more specific issues relating to scienc, ala Karl Popper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now