Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 55)
AchillesSinatra: Yes, Beaver, but Laudan is by no means anti-science. Quite the opposite.
He's actually one of the most outspoken critics of the Edinburgh "strong programme" of the sociology of science -- that scientific knowledge is a "social construct" and all that.
His position is one of pragmatism, roughly speaking, science DOES progress, but not towards truth. It progresses in its "problem-solving ability".
A very sensible position, I'd say.
Anything Laudan writes is worth reading. The man is brilliant.
Try "Science at the Bar: Causes for Concern" next (hope I got the title right)
AchillesSinatra: Laudan -- like myself -- denies the existence of "The Scientific Method".
But you'd be hard pressed to find a stauncher defender of science than he.
Angry Beaver: Reading through it, he makes some very good points as to how the thinking is all wrong
AchillesSinatra: I think so, too, pal.
Laudan is a wonderful corrective to the exaggerated claims of both sides: the science fanatics and the religious wackos.
you need to see a rea, life kodiak to appreciate the base nat ure of nature '_)