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, [email protected] 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 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
