Jun 18, 2018 08:25 PM
Why ecologists might want to read more philosophy of science
https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/201...f-science/
INTRO: Someone once said that scientists need to study philosophy of science about as much as birds need to study ornithology. And there’s definitely some truth to that, as evidenced by the fact that plenty of scientists do plenty of good science without any philosophical training. (It’s funny that practicing scientists routinely bemoan “cookbook statistics”, complaining about those who just follow statistical “recipes” without really understanding what their chosen statistical method is doing and why. But many of the same scientists are more than happy to do “cookbook science”, without knowing any philosophy of science.)
But in this post I’ll argue that it’s not entirely true. There are reasons why scientists might want to read some philosophy of science. [...] Here are some reasons why a practicing ecologist who only cares about doing good ecology, might want to read more philosophy of science....
MORE: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/201...f-science/
Someone tell Jack Horner that *Jurassic Park* is fiction
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...ck-horner/
EXCERPT: Jack Horner has an ambitious goal. He wants to reverse-engineer birds to recreate dinosaurs. [...] Yeah, I know. He’s been puttering about with this for years, using every incremental change in bird genetics engineered in a lab as confirmation of his project’s feasibility. It’s interesting developmental biology. It’s not going to get him to his goal....
~
https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/201...f-science/
INTRO: Someone once said that scientists need to study philosophy of science about as much as birds need to study ornithology. And there’s definitely some truth to that, as evidenced by the fact that plenty of scientists do plenty of good science without any philosophical training. (It’s funny that practicing scientists routinely bemoan “cookbook statistics”, complaining about those who just follow statistical “recipes” without really understanding what their chosen statistical method is doing and why. But many of the same scientists are more than happy to do “cookbook science”, without knowing any philosophy of science.)
But in this post I’ll argue that it’s not entirely true. There are reasons why scientists might want to read some philosophy of science. [...] Here are some reasons why a practicing ecologist who only cares about doing good ecology, might want to read more philosophy of science....
MORE: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/201...f-science/
Someone tell Jack Horner that *Jurassic Park* is fiction
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...ck-horner/
EXCERPT: Jack Horner has an ambitious goal. He wants to reverse-engineer birds to recreate dinosaurs. [...] Yeah, I know. He’s been puttering about with this for years, using every incremental change in bird genetics engineered in a lab as confirmation of his project’s feasibility. It’s interesting developmental biology. It’s not going to get him to his goal....
~