Talk:Pierre Duhem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
This intense religious devotion, combined with a sometimes disagreeable personality, earned him some enemies and he remains relatively obscure for this to today.
The end of the phrase seems somewhat POV to me. Maybe we need a citation here. --Leinad-Z 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- It probably does need rephrased. I'll think on it.--T. Anthony 15:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrible Biography
I removed all of the biography because no sources were quoted and there was a somewhat contradictory biography on the French wikipedia article that can be found here. Needless to say, its expansion box was overlapping with the infobox I added to the right of the page, making the article look aesthetically displeasing too. Hence I decided to remove the biography altogether.
I don't know too much about his life though, so if someone else could write the biography, that would be grand. Also, does anyone know who his influences were and who he influenced? It's not too important of a question, but it will make the infobox appear more complete. --Le vin blanc 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] confused and confusing
This sentence from the lead paragraph:
In this work he refuted the inductivist claim of Newton and notes that the Principia's law of universal mutual gravitation was deduced from 'phenomena', including Kepler's second and third laws, already refuted by the critical proof-analyses of the German logician Leibniz and then most famously by Kant, following Hume's logical critique of induction.
is perhaps the worst sentence I've ever read. I really don't know where to start. I defy anyone to find an undergraduate who could make a definitely true inference from it (e.g. "the law of gravity must be wrong" or "induction doesn't work"?)
But the next paragraph provides a clue:
As such, the Quine-Duhem thesis is often held to be a refutation of the use of Popper's criterion of falsification as a reliable means of distinguishing science from pseudoscience
"Often held" by whom? This article is a muddled presentation of a muddled (OR) interpretation of someone who, I suspect, deserves much better. Pete St.John (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks to ScienceApologist for recent changes. Many little things (like "oppose" instead of "refute") can make a big difference; so at least we hope. Pete St.John (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
