Compreendendo a ciência inconsistente???

sexta-feira, junho 13, 2014

Understanding Inconsistent Science

Peter Vickers


If somebody provides you with contradictory information, that information is usually useless. But in recent years philosophers of science have increasingly urged that many scientific theories are extremely useful despite being internally inconsistent, or self-contradictory. This book investigates eight pertinent cases from the history of science: Bohr’s theory of the atom, classical electrodynamics, Newtonian cosmology, the early calculus, the Aristotelian theory of motion, Olbers’ paradox of the night sky, classical theories of the electron, and Kirchhoff’s theory of diffraction. First and foremost the reader is encouraged to question the sense in calling most of these cases examples of ‘inconsistency in science’. Where we do find inconsistency it is argued that inconsistency in science is usually harmless, but we are also warned against making overly general statements about ‘science’. What are usually all called ‘theories’ in the history of science are actually significantly different entities, which work in significantly different ways and react to inconsistency in different ways. Thus, via an investigation of inconsistency in science, this book argues that the traditional goal of the philosopher to say substantial, fully general things about ‘how science works’ is misguided. Science works in a wide variety of very different ways, and the example of inconsistency in science is one striking example of the true diversity of science.

Keywords: Inconsistency, contradiction, scientific theories, case studies, history of science



Este livro está na minha lista de leitura em 2014.

Por que o autor deixou de fora as inconsistências em biologia evolucionária? Ora, a teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários de A a Z (vai que um falhe...), a cada dia nas pesquisas, artigos, palestras e simpósios, se mostra cada vez mais um conglomerado de ideias conflitantes entre si. Quer mais inconsistência do que isso? E isso é 
one striking example of the true diversity of science???

Pano rápido! O errado está certo!!! O certo está errado!!! E assim vamos fazendo ciência?

Pobre ciência!!!