> My paper criticised situations where abstractions are played with that
> are never connected with real problems/domains/practice. This
> discussion has been a prime example of this. Where is the verification
> or validation of all this philosophy in the practice of actual social
> simulation?
Is this paper available somewhere to read?
> It is notable that the philosophy of science has very much moved towards
> describing how science etc. is *actually* done rather than merely
> arguing about metaphysics.
There is much I need to read on the philosophy of science, because my aim
is to go to graduate school and do cognitive science research, possibly
involving computational modelling (it has been my background so far at
least). The book you mentioned by Grier sounds like a good one, from what
I read of the book description at an online bookseller's site (It's also
kind of cheap).
> 2. Think how the philosophy would actually either be testable or
> helpful to anyone. If it is neither it is useless!
The book by Grier, and your comments, seem to indicate a pragmaticist
approach to science. Would you say that the philosophy of science should
be constrained to pragmatic philosophy, thereby ridding ourselves of the
delusions of grandeur (because they *are* delusions) usually assumed by
science writers and many scientists? Such a direction seems an extremely
sensible one to go in, and also long overdue. It must also encounter some
opposition from people who want to believe that science is a way to
universal wisdom, which is kind of a religious sort of hope.
Thanks,
-Rob
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|