I encounter people quite frequently who are not perfectly well calibrated but much better calibrated than just like unthinking deference out versus tolls, sceptises and the climate scientists. I find that both philosophers of science and also working scientists don't tend to have this kind of attitude except about their own work right? So then relating then to that previous book on education this is kind of a weapon by immunising people. Sally there are no well calibrated agents right people either think it's infallible or completely untrustworthy right that's the problem. It seems that familiarity of the practice being engaged with science tends to actually give you a sense of like there really is something unusually reliable about this as a way
Everybody talks about the truth, but nobody does anything about it. And to be honest, how we talk about truth — what it is, and how to get there — can be a little sloppy at times. Philosophy to the rescue! I had a very ambitious conversation with Liam Kofi Bright, starting with what we mean by “truth” (correspondence, coherence, pragmatist, and deflationary approaches), and then getting into the nitty-gritty of how we actually discover it. There’s a lot to think about once we take a hard look at how science gets done, how discoveries are communicated, and what different kinds of participants can bring to the table.
Support Mindscape on Patreon.
Liam Kofi Bright received his Ph.D. in Logic, Computation and Methodology from Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently on the faculty of the London School of Economics in the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and the Scientific Method. He has worked on questions concerning peer review and fraud in scientific communities, intersectionality, logical empiricism, and Africana philosophy. He is well-known on Twitter as the Last Positivist.
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.