New York Times Dec 18, 2005 -lehdessä John Horgan on arvioinut Chris Mooney:n kuuluisaksi tulleen kirjan "The Republican War on Science". (Jopa Suomen HS on siitä jotain kerran maininnut).
Mooneyn on sanottu aliarvioineen, yliyksinkertaistaneen tieteenfilosofista demarkaatio-ongelmaa so. miten erottaa huono ja hyvä tiede toisistaan.
Horgan tulee kuitenkin Mooneyn puolelle. Artikkelinsa lopulla, tässä alla viimeisellä rivillä, hän antaa simppelin peukalosääntöreseptin erottaa kehno tiede:
"Mooney notes that one prominent doubter and sometime Bush administration adviser on climate change, the M.I.T. meteorologist Richard Lindzen, is a smoker who has also questioned the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer.
Mooney's critique has understandably annoyed some of his colleagues. In a review in The Washington Post, the journalist Keay Davidson faults Mooney for not acknowledging how hard it can be to distinguish good science from bad. Philosophers call this the "demarcation problem." Demarcation can indeed be difficult, especially if all the scientists involved are trying in good faith to get at the truth, and Mooney does occasionally imply that demarcation consists simply of checking scientists' party affiliations. But in many of the cases that he examines, demarcation is easy, because one side has an a priori commitment to something other than the truth - God or money, to put it bluntly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html?pagewanted=3&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1134819520-emCncxaJTM4rHl8Zi7t6ZA
(vaatii registeröitymisen)
Mooneyn on sanottu aliarvioineen, yliyksinkertaistaneen tieteenfilosofista demarkaatio-ongelmaa so. miten erottaa huono ja hyvä tiede toisistaan.
Horgan tulee kuitenkin Mooneyn puolelle. Artikkelinsa lopulla, tässä alla viimeisellä rivillä, hän antaa simppelin peukalosääntöreseptin erottaa kehno tiede:
"Mooney notes that one prominent doubter and sometime Bush administration adviser on climate change, the M.I.T. meteorologist Richard Lindzen, is a smoker who has also questioned the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer.
Mooney's critique has understandably annoyed some of his colleagues. In a review in The Washington Post, the journalist Keay Davidson faults Mooney for not acknowledging how hard it can be to distinguish good science from bad. Philosophers call this the "demarcation problem." Demarcation can indeed be difficult, especially if all the scientists involved are trying in good faith to get at the truth, and Mooney does occasionally imply that demarcation consists simply of checking scientists' party affiliations. But in many of the cases that he examines, demarcation is easy, because one side has an a priori commitment to something other than the truth - God or money, to put it bluntly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18horgan.html?pagewanted=3&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1134819520-emCncxaJTM4rHl8Zi7t6ZA
(vaatii registeröitymisen)
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.