1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: + +
→Popper: If you want an expert opinion
::::::I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question, one which I have yet to see an answer to. I’ve tried asking it in context, to explain why I’m asking, but it seems to get lost when I try to do it that way, so let me drop the context and ask the question straight out: Are philosophers of science appropriate sources to use as support for claims about science?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question, one which I have yet to see an answer to. I’ve tried asking it in context, to explain why I’m asking, but it seems to get lost when I try to do it that way, so let me drop the context and ask the question straight out: Are philosophers of science appropriate sources to use as support for claims about science?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: If you want an expert opinion on quantum chromodynamics, I wouldn't pay much attention to the philosophers. If the question is some scientific claim related to Freudian theory, such as whether the symbolic interpretation of dreams can predict behavior, then that is not really a question that philosophy answers. But Popper is being used her for a question of philosophy, not the merits of any scientific ideas. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)