Scott Alexander presents highlights from reader comments on his review of Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', offering various perspectives and clarifications on Kuhn's ideas about scientific progress. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's review of Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. The comments provide additional context, clarifications, and perspectives on Kuhn's work. They discuss topics such as the nature of paradigm shifts, the relationship between different scientific theories, Kuhn's metaphysics, and the implications of his ideas for the philosophy of science. The post also includes an analogy comparing scientific progress to building skyscrapers, and touches on the debate between Kuhn and Popper's views on falsification in science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends logical positivism, arguing that despite its flaws, it points to useful ideas about dividing meaningful statements into scientific and logical categories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a defense of logical positivism, a philosophical stance generally considered outdated. He argues that while logical positivism may not be entirely correct, it points to a cluster of correct ideas. The post draws parallels between logical positivism, Hume's fork, and modern rationalist thinking, suggesting they all divide meaningful statements into something like science and something like logic. Scott argues this division is productive and helps identify meaningless statements. He then attempts to apply this framework to traditionally challenging areas like mathematics, morality, and counterfactuals. The post concludes by addressing the common criticism that logical positivism fails its own criteria, suggesting that its value might lie in its ability to facilitate productive debate. Shorter summary