[FRIAM] Pragmaticism and puritanism

[uǝlƃ ☣]

No. Go to the meeting. Follow Frank's advice. And stop at the store on the way home to buy some beans and rice. 

I don't care at all about what philosophers might say about philosophers' contributions to science. That's the point. I need to see some *scientific* studies of whether conversations like this contribute to science. That's what I mean by eating your own dog food. If you claim to privilege science, then actually cite or do some science.


On 3/11/20 11:00 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Re Renee:  If she were the Friam Health Officer, would she suspend our weekly meeting of septuagenarians in a college dining hall?  For her information, there are exactly zero diagnosed cases of the virus in NM at the moment.
> 
> I agree with you.  It’s certainly not death I fear.  Its that moment when Penny and I are crawling to the front door to gnaw at boxes of sugar frosted flakes that the fire department has left at our door.  That moment I fear.
> 
> [...]
> 
> */[NST===>] No, no, Glen.  Be fair.  That’s OUR dogfood I would be eating.  So the question would be, Does a science move more slowly or more rapidly toward convergence on enduring understandings with or without logical understandings?  Can philosophers point to cases where they have clearly contributed to development and/or dissemination of empirical knowledge?  I know that many philosophers of science have been dubious about it. .  I would quickly cite Peirce as an example given that his focus on the practicial consequences of concepts (their consequences in practice) helped to move behavioral sciences on during subsequent 50 years. Somebody must of made that case.  I will shake some bushes.  /*

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ