logoalt Hacker News

dbacaryesterday at 8:37 AM1 replyview on HN

Is it a probability that the authors understood the notion of Understanding all wrong?

;).


Replies

rramadassyesterday at 11:02 AM

You jest but are right.

There is nothing new in the article and has already been covered well by some of the greatest Scientists/Mathematicians. We must be careful that articles/papers like these are not used by the anti-scientific crowd to promote their talking points and agendas.

Notably, Henri Poincare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9 and https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/en/) wrote three philosophy of science books; viz. 1) Science and Hypothesis 2) The Value of Science and 3) Science and Method.

These were published together under the apt title, The Foundations of Science which is available here - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm and here (ebook versions) - https://archive.org/details/foundationsscie01poingoog

Details of the works;

1) Science and Hypothesis (1902) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Hypothesis

2) The Value of Science (1904) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science

3) Science and Method (1908) - pdf at https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/chp/hp-pdf/hp1914... At the minimum read this completely.

See also;

a) History of Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

b) Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

show 1 reply