(Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it. So take it in terms of working out ideas and forgive me for not having a finished thought)
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > > "It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate their whole > lifes to the separating of fiction from fact, are unable to separate their > own dreams about science from the true form of science." I think this is as true of philosophers as it is of scientists. As I mentioned in that last (unfinished) post I think there’s often a bit too much arm chair philosophizing by philosophers of science at times. Likewise I think some don’t take into appreciation the differences in practice between different fields or subfields. That said, I also think it undeniable some scientists write on the subject without bothering to read up on arguments already made. i.e. a strong ignorance of literature on the subject. This is especially true of prominent scientists entering into the field of popularizing science literature. I’ve come over time to find arguments over method as far less interesting than arguments over metaphysical implications of particular theories - especially in theoretical physics. Things such as the nature of time in light of general relativity and string theory.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
