News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad. Parent comment

Re:Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad by 8bitsrule on Sunday April 14, 2019 @08:02PM (#19662417)
Yes. Before I read Kuhn, Popper, Polanyi and Feyerabend, I had naively thought of science as a means to a higher, more solid 'truth'. Over time I realized that (verified!) observations are more fundamental - bricks - than the interpretations (temples) made of those bricks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad by ngcc_hk on Monday April 15, 2019 @02:49AM (#19663581)
After so many decade finally heard someone read the same set of books and feel great about them.

Kuhn is never bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad by munificent on Monday April 15, 2019 @01:35AM (#19663304)
But the bricks won't keep the rain off you.

The data is closest to reality, but without interpretation, we can't take useful action from it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad by spiderjerusalem on Monday April 15, 2019 @04:17AM (#19663897)
Popper and Feyerabend are incompatible though. Feyerabend explicitly critiqued Popper.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad by coldtea on Monday April 15, 2019 @07:48AM (#19664637)
That doesn't make it incompatible as readings.

It's not even that one is right and the other is wrong.

Both can have right and wrong points we can adopt (even if either of them would want us to take all of their points wholesale).

[ Parent | on HN ]