>> A school of thought specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles
Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here).
>> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science.
Well, in German language there is the word "Geisteswissenschaft" which includes philosophy; they have not the same conception of science like the English speaking world. See e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft
Among other things I also attended many years of philosophy lectures. As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, I think it should go more in this direction: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/d...
I think if he would have been alive at the right time these would have been blog posts. Before reading them, I had taken an intro class in thermodynamics which at left me completely confused.
Read THE EVOLUTION OF CARNOT'S PRINCIPLE ( http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ccarnot.pdf )
for incredible insights on how Carnot pioneered thermodynamics by trying to optimize steam engines.
Also if you think you dislike statistics and probabilities but you like math in general his book might change your mind: Probability Theory: The Logic of Science.
Free draft: http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html
In fact understanding his stance on probabilities, the mind projection fallacy in particular might be prerequisite to understand thermodynamics, the fundamental point being that entropy is not really directly a property of matter but more of a meta property that is about knowledge or information which is taken to mean correlations across aggregate matter.
* edit: Doh, no Kindle version. I don't mind paying $90+ for a good book though, just like it to be electronic:
There's a human (irrational) bias to be risk averse, but that doesn't mean it's always safer than we think. We also have selection bias as a counterpoint. There are plenty of similar posts with the opposing view based on the later bias, too.
Instead, let's try to be more rational and understand probability:
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf (draft)
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science
Available here: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf
The introduction/first chapter has a nice example about a policeman concluding a crime is being committed that's very relevant here.
in this case, the development of inference is certainly a consequence of the development of the scientific method. but the validity of the latter is a mathematical consequence of the validity of the former. bayesian inference is more fundamental.
another good book that informs my personal views on this matter: http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Logic-Science-Vol/d...
Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.