@ewisniowski@philosophy As a creature of pure id, it's actually all he knows. Any kind of analytic philosophy is outsourced to his uncredited co-authors.
Latest papers: Greyson Abid argues that a complete explanation of the cross-race effect must account for our difficulty in recognising other-race faces along with our limited metacognitive awareness of this difficulty https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2356207@philosophy#philosophy
@philosophy Here is my MSc thesis from 2016 critically evaluating the solution to the Ship of Thesis problem which denies that there ever was a ship to begin with (mereological nihilism).
At the height of the great method debate in the 20th century what were Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn debating about? How long did the discourse start last etc? Who won the debate? What was the take away and where are we at with it today?
Context: reading some #philosophy of #science lately as well.
I picture the mind kind of like a garden, all the parts I’m learning revolve around a similar theme which is mostly around some of the nuts and bolts of #science.
Popper is now mostly known for refutation, which most scientists know, but rarely follow in the pure form. Kuhn was much closer to how science is actually being done. Arguably, Kuhn was more of sociologist of science than philosopher of science. Both are considered wrong in their own way, i.e. their theories have known problems and gaps.
@mirekdlugosz@philosophy
Yes I do understand however I was hoping to get human input on the topic, not trying to run anyone under the bus, just get some friendly perspectives that’s all! Thanks for answering!
For some broad questions I just like to hear from others first maybe get some organic answers. Before I form anything about the subject that’s all.
I do use Plato @ Stanford anytime I have any questions regarding specifics. I was more interested in contextual and chrono that’s all :)
‘He had a sarcastic turn of phrase’: discovery of 1509 book sheds new light on ‘father of utilitarianism’
“Last month, UCL academics unveiled the most significant rediscovered books left to the university in Bentham’s will, including the translation of Brandt’s Ship of Fools and a maths textbook explaining Euclid’s propositions. Their contents, together with the philosopher’s own notes, indicate how some of his radical theories were first sparked.”
“He argued that all four sublunar elements, namely, earth, water, air, and fire, can be analysed into geometrical units which take two shapes: cubical when at rest, and pyramidal when in motion. This allowed him, in turn, to solve the difficulty of the participation of the cubical portions of earth in elemental transmutations, which was due to the triangular faces of the other elements.”
On the blog today, Victor Lange and Thor Grünbaum discuss their recent paper about transparency of experience and mindfulness meditation. #philosophy@philosophy