When I was taught the history of chemistry by R.S. Westfall, we looked at
how it developed out of alchemy. The history of errors would seem necessary
to any study of rationality, to understand how good ideas can sometimes take
a wrong turn in history and other sorts of mistakes. also, if we want to
understand historical figures like Newton, it is a little artificial to
avoid their weirdnesses altogether.
> 2. The very concept of knowledge is not clearly defined in our
>culture. However, it appears necessary to reach a reasonable understanding
>of this concept in order to be able to criticise pseudo-knowledge or
>to reach a working distinction between knowledge and art. (This is
>particularly interesting to those who wish to understand the relation
>between pure mathematics and applications of mathematics.)
>
This seems reasonable. In philosophy of science courses we teach the
distinction between science and pseudo-science. Although there is no general
agreement on the principles of demarcation, there is pretty much of a
consensus among philosophers of science (of a non-post-modern stripe) what
belongs on either side of the demarcation line.
Ed Mares
Department of Philosophy
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O. Box 600
Wellington, New Zealand
Edwin.Mares@vuw.ac.nz
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/phil/