Re: XP Requirement Analysis?
From: Dagfinn Reiersol (reiersol_at_online.no)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: Universe: "Why the Craftite Pragmatist is Bad"
- Previous message: Simon Elliott: "Another C++ design question"
- In reply to: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Next in thread: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Reply: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:45:45 +0200
Universe wrote:
> Dagfinn Reiersol <reiersol@online.no> wrote:
>
>
>>You seem to have missed the fact that I'm summarizing the views of Paul
>>Feyerabend, who was one of the big names in the philosophy of science,
>>and who I'm sure knew the history of science far better than either of us.
>>
>>We know now that Galileo was basically right, and as you say, that his
>>observations were "a major win for science". But that's with the benefit
>>of hindsight....
>>
>>... The question is, how strong were Galileo's reasons for
>>believing that what he saw in the telescope was real, given the evidence
>>and the theories--and the quality of the equipment--that were available
>>at the time.
>>
>>... he [Galileo]
>>offers no /theoretical/ reasons why the telescope should be expected to
>>give a true picture of the sky.
>
>
> If everyone for years prior found indeed that what they saw in
> telescopes actually was true, why would he have reason to question what
> he saw.
>
> NB: powerful motivations for improving "telescopy" were sighting enemy
> and merchant ships at sea and coming toward land and for other military
> purposes.
>
>
>>"In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes
>>/sensations/ that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are
>>such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them,
>
>
> Please, how did Galileo "endanger" the Copernican model of the solar
> system. In fact Galileo *supported* the Copernican model against the
> errant Ptolemaic earth centered model of the solar system.
>
>>Nor does the initial /experience/ with the telescope provide such
>>reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct,
>>indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can see
>>with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have helped to
>>separate telescopic illusions from vericidal phenomena was refuted by
>>simple tests."
>
>
> Please explain.
Read the book if you dare. (You may develop serious medical conditions.
;-) As I said, it's called /Against Method/.
It's not far off topic, since it might teach us something about
rationality, dogmatism and similar concepts that pop up in these
discussions, but explaining it to someone who's only interested in
shooting it down doesn't appeal to me.
- Next message: Universe: "Why the Craftite Pragmatist is Bad"
- Previous message: Simon Elliott: "Another C++ design question"
- In reply to: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Next in thread: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Reply: Universe: "Re: XP Requirement Analysis?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|