by kirk » Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:02 am
I was traveling back home today after vacation and started the process of re-reading ZAMM. I'm even making notes within the pages for the heavier material. Everything about the scientific method and the fallibility of scientific "truths" is pretty interesting on a second take. The idea that truth is a function of time, for instance, or that there is an infinite number of rational hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. Which would basically state that the scientific method as a whole does the opposite of its intention by actually bringing us further from truth.
I'm at the part where he's talking about Hume's take on knowledge via sense data and imagining "substance" vs. Kant's a priori knowledge.
Read faster, Simpson.
I was traveling back home today after vacation and started the process of re-reading ZAMM. I'm even making notes within the pages for the heavier material. Everything about the scientific method and the fallibility of scientific "truths" is pretty interesting on a second take. The idea that truth is a function of time, for instance, or that there is an infinite number of rational hypotheses to explain a phenomenon. Which would basically state that the scientific method as a whole does the opposite of its intention by actually bringing us further from truth.
I'm at the part where he's talking about Hume's take on knowledge via sense data and imagining "substance" vs. Kant's [i]a priori[/i] knowledge.
Read faster, Simpson.