Martin Curd J. A. Cover가 편집한 『Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues』에는 Larry Laudan의 글이 네 편 실려 있다.


Science at the barcauses for concern


Dissecting the holist picture of scientific change


Demystifying underdetermination


A Confutation of convergent realism


아직 다 읽어보지는 않았지만 상당히 인상적이었다. Karl PopperThomas Kuhn을 읽을 때에 “여러 가지 생각할 거리를 던져주고는 있지만 한심한 구석이 많다. 도대체 왜 이런 사람들이 과학 철학계에서 대단한 인기를 끌었는지 모르겠다”는 생각이 든 것과는 대조적이었다. 앞으로 일단 Larry Laudan에게 과학 철학을 배워야겠다는 생각이 들었다.




점성술과 정신분석에 대한 나의 글과 「Science at the bar—causes for concern」을 읽어보면 둘 사이에 상당한 공통점이 있음을 발견할 수 있을 것이다.


「과학: 추측과 논박(포퍼)」 비판 노트: 04. 점성술은 반증 가능하다


「과학: 추측과 논박(포퍼)」 비판 노트: 07. 정신분석은 반증 가능하다




Science at the bar—causes for concern」에서는 창조론 문제를 다룬다. 하지만 Laudan의 이야기를 정신분석에도 거의 그대로 적용할 수 있을 것 같다.


At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. That is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence—evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

Science at the bar—causes for concern




Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them.

Science at the bar—causes for concern