No short cuts to science

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):889-889 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Steven Rose regards oversimplification of biology as the supreme sin, inevitably leading to evil consequences, and requiring an unique distortion of scientific practice to avoid it. To avoid this, he proposes a short-cut to scientific knowledge by defining certain areas of biology that are intrinsically flawed. But this achieves only a subordination of science to politics. There are no general-purpose shortcuts for evaluating the validity of theories, and no substitutes for testing specific theories using relevant evidence.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Inductions, Red Herrings, and the Best Explanation for the Mixed Record of Science.P. D. Magnus - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (4):803-819.
Type two cuts, bad cuts and very bad cuts.Renling Jin - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (4):1241-1252.
Science and Ontology.Yvonne Raley - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 12:143-147.
Cuts in hyperfinite time lines.Renling Jin - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (2):522-527.
How to test normative theories of science.David Baumslag - 2000 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 31 (2):267-275.
Philosophy of science: a very short introduction.Samir Okasha - 2002 - New York: Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
8 (#1,138,312)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references