Responses

PDF

Lessons from Popper for science, paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions and exercise physiology
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
Publication Date - String

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Lessons from a broad view of science: a commentary on Dr Robergs’ article
    • Flavio O Pires, Associate Professor Exercise Psychophysiology Research Group, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, Brazil

    I have read Dr Robergs’ article 1 with much enthusiasm, from the first to the last paragraph. He criticized my occasional piece article suggesting a probable Kuhnian paradigm shift in Exercise Sciences2. I was expecting comments and critiques to my provocative essay since its publication, approximately five years ago. Perhaps, as Philosophy of Science is complex and purely reflexive, just a few exercise scientists have devoted enough time to study it. I now have the opportunity to continue debating and applying some Philosophy in the Exercise Sciences perspective.
    Reading Dr Robergs’ 1 article drove me back to the Philosophy of Science to reexamine some crucial academic works essential to a better understanding of how science operates. Since my first critical essay as a beginner student in science, about “The objective knowledge” of Karl Popper 3 during lectures on the Philosophy of Science by Emeritus Professor Michel Paty at the University of São Paulo, my thinking has evolved through different views of science, from Francis Bacon to Karl Popper, from Thomas Kuhn to Paul Feyerabend. Thus, the biased commentary promoted by Dr Robergs towards the falsification method did not surprise me because Karl Popper was one of the first philosophers I read as a beginner in science. Neither was Dr Robergs’ 1 claim in favor of the falsification criteria in Exercise Sciences entirely new 4. As a philosophy-oriented scientist I learned that we may benefit from a wider view of scie...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.