Portrait of Galileo Galilei by Justus Sustermans painted in 1636.
Here.
Here.
I've taken a lot of shit for being a philosophy major (a friend of mine once said, "but, John, you're fairly smart; why are you doing philosophy?" Cute, right?) And in particular, people seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around my love of philosophy of science.
Imre Lakatos says it pretty well (from his paper, "Science and Pseudoscience"):
The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience has grave implications also for the institutionalization of criticism. Copernicus's theory was banned by the Catholic Church in 1616 because it was said to be pseudoscientific. It was taken off the index in 1820 because by that time the Church deemed that facts had proved it and therefore it became scientific. The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1949 declared Mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had its advocates, like Academician Vavilov, killed in concentration camps; after Vavilov's murder Mendelian genetics was rehabilitated; but the Party's right to decide what is science and publishable and what is pseudoscience and punishable was upheld. The new liberal Establishment of the West also exercises the right to deny freedom of speech to what it regards as pseudoscience, as we have seen in the case of the debate concerning race and intelligence. All these judgments were inevitably based on some sort of demarcation criterion. And this is why the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is not a pseudo-problem of armchair philosophers: it has grave ethical and political implications. [emphasis mine]
Another reason to love philosophy: you just study arguments. The homework for philosophy: Read this argument. Respond. Awesome.
|