Talk:History of philosophy of science: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Delete?: very badly written) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Should this not be part of the [[Philosophy of science]] article? The history of the subject and a description of the subject will overlap enormously I'd have thought. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 17:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | Should this not be part of the [[Philosophy of science]] article? The history of the subject and a description of the subject will overlap enormously I'd have thought. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 17:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::I wondered the same thing. I can see going either way, but my preference is to have two articles, with the [[Philosophy of science]] article covering the subject in broad outline and, probably, containing the 20th and 21st Century picture of the subject, and a separate article on the history of the subject. On the other hand, contemporary philosophy of science is largely motivated by, and informed by, the history of thought in science, metaphysics and epistemology. In talking about the advent of logical positivism, for example, and its impact on the development of the philosophy of science in the last century, one must make reference to neo-kantianism, to Kant and so of course to Hume (etc.) and broad historical problems in science, metaphysics and epistemology. However, these references in a central Phil of Science article can be "lite," with links to more extensive coverage in other articles.--[[User:Joseph Bessie|Joseph Bessie]] 10:29, 28 November 2007 (CST) | |||
== Delete? == | |||
Ro wondered if this article should be deleted. I for one don't think so. It's a stub. It is the start of an article. It's not hurting anything here. Leave it until we can really see whether or not it should merge with [[philosophy of science]]. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I glanced at it a little while ago and was surprised -- it's barely literate. Maybe not deleted, but it should be completely rewritten. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:28, 30 August 2009
|
| Metadata here |
This must be extended. Main lines can be taken form History of Philosophy, and Philosophy of Science. --Matthias Brendel 04:56, 11 December 2006 (CST)
Should this not be part of the Philosophy of science article? The history of the subject and a description of the subject will overlap enormously I'd have thought. --Peter J. King Talk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
- I wondered the same thing. I can see going either way, but my preference is to have two articles, with the Philosophy of science article covering the subject in broad outline and, probably, containing the 20th and 21st Century picture of the subject, and a separate article on the history of the subject. On the other hand, contemporary philosophy of science is largely motivated by, and informed by, the history of thought in science, metaphysics and epistemology. In talking about the advent of logical positivism, for example, and its impact on the development of the philosophy of science in the last century, one must make reference to neo-kantianism, to Kant and so of course to Hume (etc.) and broad historical problems in science, metaphysics and epistemology. However, these references in a central Phil of Science article can be "lite," with links to more extensive coverage in other articles.--Joseph Bessie 10:29, 28 November 2007 (CST)
Delete?
Ro wondered if this article should be deleted. I for one don't think so. It's a stub. It is the start of an article. It's not hurting anything here. Leave it until we can really see whether or not it should merge with philosophy of science. Russell D. Jones 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I glanced at it a little while ago and was surprised -- it's barely literate. Maybe not deleted, but it should be completely rewritten. Hayford Peirce 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)