Why Scientific Knowledge Is Still the Best

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 7 (9):18-32 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his latest attack, even though he claims to be a practitioner of “close reading” (Wills 2018b, 34), it appears that Wills still has not bothered to read the paper in which I defend the thesis he seeks to attack (Mizrahi 2017a), or any of the papers in my exchange with Brown (Mizrahi 2017b; 2018a), as evidenced by the fact that he does not cite them at all. This explains why Wills completely misunderstands Weak Scientism and the arguments for the quantitative superiority (in terms of research output and research impact) as well as qualitative superiority (in terms of explanatory, predictive, and instrumental success) of scientific knowledge over non-scientific knowledge.

Author's Profile

Moti Mizrahi
Florida Institute of Technology

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-12

Downloads
549 (#26,908)

6 months
147 (#18,261)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?