This is the first in a series of essays on science and what makes it variably reliable. Future essays will cover measurement, experiment, theory, scientists, social structures, and institutions.
When I was young, I was fascinated by science, specifically its own philosophy. I have read all the famous authors: Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend. Back then, science was my religion and idol.
Then I started getting more and more into philosophy and economics. Philosophy opened whole new worlds that were inaccessible through science. Economics showed me how to formalize and study scarcity and its interactions, though I disliked its attempt to mimic physics.
After all this journey, I came to realize that reality is weird, nuanced, and extremely complex. There is more to it than science, and I can't keep speaking about serotonin and oxytocin to capture my happy state. I abandoned scientism.
You did a splendid job of reminding me of my journey; you made it more lucid, clear, and concrete.
Scanned your article and, while I have no time to read it in-depth right now, it looks genuinely impressive and earnest. I came here from your Twitter and am very glad to have found you.
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the natural philosophy of science and epistemology seriously; we need more of that in the world, and I'm also on the same mission (though probably far behind you academically, just approaching it from a passionate layperson's perspective and my own lifetime of reflections and questioning).
No one said you can't comment. By "more or less" I actually meant "increasingly or decreasingly", not "approximately", but I have edited it to be more clear.
When I was young, I was fascinated by science, specifically its own philosophy. I have read all the famous authors: Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend. Back then, science was my religion and idol.
Then I started getting more and more into philosophy and economics. Philosophy opened whole new worlds that were inaccessible through science. Economics showed me how to formalize and study scarcity and its interactions, though I disliked its attempt to mimic physics.
After all this journey, I came to realize that reality is weird, nuanced, and extremely complex. There is more to it than science, and I can't keep speaking about serotonin and oxytocin to capture my happy state. I abandoned scientism.
You did a splendid job of reminding me of my journey; you made it more lucid, clear, and concrete.
Thank you!
Scanned your article and, while I have no time to read it in-depth right now, it looks genuinely impressive and earnest. I came here from your Twitter and am very glad to have found you.
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the natural philosophy of science and epistemology seriously; we need more of that in the world, and I'm also on the same mission (though probably far behind you academically, just approaching it from a passionate layperson's perspective and my own lifetime of reflections and questioning).
I appreciate the support! I'd be happy to hear your feedback once you've read the piece.
"more or less" and "proven" are weak words as they appear in the text. If the author does not want me commenting all he needs to do is say so
No one said you can't comment. By "more or less" I actually meant "increasingly or decreasingly", not "approximately", but I have edited it to be more clear.