Talk:Duhem–Quine thesis

Picture

Picture of the gray squares illusion "square A appears to be darker than the B square" This statement seems to be wrong for me. Did you mean "the letter A appears to be darker than the letter B"? John Testelin jtestel@gmail.com

THis article is very lame and thin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenPlatts (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it ought to be merged, but it surely needs to be revised. It's quite full of typographical errors, & worse, poorly or incorrectly structured sentences (missing words, missing subjects, etc.). RubyQ 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes revise the page, but do not merge the two pages. A link should be given to the holim page.

merge them

Given the varieties of holism and widespread use of the Duhem-Quine thesis, don't merge. Further revision is necessary. Thomasmeeks 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

He did not include at all a priori disciplines such as logic and mathematics within these theoretical groups in Physics which can be tested experimentally--Filll (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It means he didn't include a-priori things like logic or maths in his set of things which can be tested experimentally. The sentence isn't brilliantly worded; maths and logic aren't a theoretical group in physics.Saluton (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the picture have to do with the topic?

94.174.68.59 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a clear metaphor at all. As no-one else has commented since 2012 I have been bold and deleted the image. Ben Finn (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF & Ben Finn I see that that deletion was reverted. I really think that the analogy between the topic and the illustration is lame and is lamely worded. If someone can show that Quine himself somewhere used that picture (or close equivalent) to make that point, OK otherwise I shall soon be thinking of a bold deletion myself. "I find the image pretty good, and it makes the article more engaging" is only a valid plea if it makes a valid argument; I find it unpersuasive and tenuously relevant at best. JonRichfield (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think Quine used the picture anywhere. (And the caption doesn't suggest that he did either.) Ben Finn (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I don't like deletions where I can provide corrections or improvements instead. So I located what seemed to me a sounder example of the principle and some illustrations to match. I am not terribly satisfied with the article, but the various scientific and in particular philosophical discussions are so discursive, varied and debatable that I think I had better let well enough alone. Comments welcome. JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The optical illusion image may have been a less accurate example than the Galilean moons, but the illusion was a far more profound and clear example of the epistemological importance of holism. It takes a great deal of effort to explain why a prediction involving Jupiter's moons requires background assumptions. By contrast, it is very clear why a visual prediction involving the color of a square is affected by our belief about the surrounding squares. I was about to link this article to a friend during a philosophical discussion, but now I feel it is too technical to be of use in an informal context. I think this article was a lot more powerful with the old visual aid. Fyedernoggersnodden (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2020

Interesting article... I had been reading related literature recently. The last two sections, under each of the names of the chaps in question, are almost completely impenetrable to me. I am inclined to go read up on what their interpretations actually were, make each one a sub-section, and delete most of the content. Right now it's just confusing. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Supposed discovery

The caption in the box on the top right says that the four brightest moons of Jupiter were discovered by Galileo. Actually, all four are visible to the unaided eye. Gan De saw one before Galileo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.34 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A priority dispute between Simon Marius and Galileo is still going on today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.34 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Geostatic opinions were found the world over and were not confined to "papal authorities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.34 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)