Previous lecture we ran into logic and science as subject. I think it is time dig somewhat deeper now and try to shed light on the question”What IS philosophy of science?
As usual in philosophy there are number of views, depending on the perspective you choose.
One view is that the philosophy of science is the formulation of world views that are consistent with, and in some sense based on, important scientific theories.
On this view, it is the task of the philosopher of science to elaborate the broader implications of science.
For instance that we should not talk of ‘substance”, but of “process” or not of “thought” but of “brain-process”as ontological categories.
A second view is that the philosophy of science is an exposition of the presuppositions and predispositions of scientists.
The philosopher of science may point out that scientists presuppose that nature is not capricious,
and that there exist in nature regularities of sufficiently low complexity to be accessible to the investigator.
In addition, he may uncover the preferences of scientists for deterministic rather than statistical laws, or for mechanistic rather than teleological explanations.
A third view is that the philosophy of science is a discipline in which the concepts and theories of the sciences are analyzed and clarified.
But as Gilbert Ryle in some article has pointed out, there is something pretentious about this view of the philosophy of science,
as if the scientist needed the philosopher of science to explain to him the meanings of his scientific concepts.
A fourth view is that philosopher of science is a second-order critic. He seeks answers to such questions as:
1. What characteristics distinguish scientific inquiry from other types of investigation?
A detective is not by definition a scientist.
2. What procedures should scientists follow in investigating nature?
Is he allowed to follow his instinct, or should he use proper measurements.
3. What conditions must be satisfied for a scientific explanation to be correct?
One condition we saw last time: the explanation must at least be logical, that is, use valid reasoning.
4. What is the cognitive status of scientific laws and principles?
This leads to fundamental epistemological considerations.
We’ll adopt this fourth view, the philosopher observing science from a distance. There is a distinction to be made between doing science and thinking about how science ought to be done.
We live in a world of facts and the goal of science is to explain these facts, predict new facts.
By the four questions I mentioned, the philosophy of science tries to come to an analysis of the procedures and logic of scientific explanation.
In other words, how was the human brain capable of getting to understand reality that much as we do now.
That I hope to clarify in this project.
Thank you…. ^_^
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)
Gilbert Ryle, ‘Systematically Misleading Expressions’, in A. Flew, ed., Essays on Logic and Language—First Series (Oxford: Blackwell, 1951), 11–13.
The Discussion
[2014/10/02 13:19] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[2014/10/02 13:19] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman ...
[2014/10/02 13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: makes sense to follow some criteria for sure
[2014/10/02 13:19] argus Portal: Thank you
[2014/10/02 13:19] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[2014/10/02 13:19] argus Portal: [13:18] herman Bergson: In other words, how was the human brain capable of getting to understand reality that much as we do now.
I think, scientists are the only ones, who can find an answer.
[2014/10/02 13:20] Bejiita Imako: i guess so
[2014/10/02 13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: or course there is always serendipity in science
[2014/10/02 13:20] Bejiita Imako: indeed only humans can do things like conduct science, invent and build machines and other things
[2014/10/02 13:20] Ciska Riverstone: my first question would be : what are proper measurements?
[2014/10/02 13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: surprise!!!!!!
[2014/10/02 13:20] herman Bergson: I dont know Argus....
[2014/10/02 13:20] Bejiita Imako: question is why are we so mych more advanced then other life forms
[2014/10/02 13:20] argus Portal: All except science is speculation / dreaming
[2014/10/02 13:21] herman Bergson: That is not what I mean Argus....
[2014/10/02 13:21] herman Bergson: I mean we are conscious beings....that makes us so different from all other organisms Bejiita
[2014/10/02 13:21] Ciska Riverstone: are we Bejiita? or do we just feel we are cause we need more then other life forms?
[2014/10/02 13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[2014/10/02 13:22] herman Bergson: But we don’t understand consciousness at all....
[2014/10/02 13:22] Dawn Rhiannyr: true that
[2014/10/02 13:22] argus Portal: yes, thats the problem
[2014/10/02 13:22] herman Bergson: Not a problem, Argus...just an observation...:-)
[2014/10/02 13:22] Ciska Riverstone: (i mean- no dolphin wants an iphone ,) )
[2014/10/02 13:22] argus Portal: For me it is a problem ;-)
[2014/10/02 13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: nature follows natures rules ... including lower life forms
[2014/10/02 13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: Do we ??
[2014/10/02 13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: I think not
[2014/10/02 13:23] herman Bergson: No Gemma....
[2014/10/02 13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: right
[2014/10/02 13:23] herman Bergson: Because we are the only organisme that can say...
[2014/10/02 13:23] herman Bergson: oh..is that nature’s rule...well..f*** y** ..it is not mine :-))
2014/10/02 13:23] herman Bergson: no cat can say that :-))
[2014/10/02 13:23] Ciska Riverstone: well thinking and being curious and creative is part of our nature too
[2014/10/02 13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: right
[2014/10/02 13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and not lower forms
[2014/10/02 13:24] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[2014/10/02 13:24] Bejiita Imako: sort of
[2014/10/02 13:24] argus Portal: But WHY are we curious ? I think, the answer of that question is very importnat
[
[2014/10/02 13:24] Ciska Riverstone: thats in our nature arugs ;)
[2014/10/02 13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: thank goodness
[2014/10/02 13:24] Bejiita Imako: ctas can only meow
[2014/10/02 13:24] argus Portal: Yes, Ciska: but WHY ?
[2014/10/02 13:24] argus Portal: For me it has to do with consciousness
[2014/10/02 13:24] herman Bergson: Indeed Gemma because then you had a real problem in the house :-))
[2014/10/02 13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: I think humans must be curious to progress
[2014/10/02 13:25] herman Bergson: Why are we curious???
[2014/10/02 13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: from the first cave man
[2014/10/02 13:25] argus Portal: Progress for what ?
[2014/10/02 13:25] Bejiita Imako: why can only we have alanguage and not other life forms, would be much easier to communicate with for ex a dog, a dog barks same way almost no matter if its happy or sad
[2014/10/02 13:25] Bejiita Imako: or angry
[2014/10/02 13:25] herman Bergson: Simple...because we want to survive...
[2014/10/02 13:25] Bejiita Imako: still same sound
[2014/10/02 13:25] Dawn Rhiannyr: our only way to survive
[2014/10/02 13:25] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes
[2014/10/02 13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: better ways to get food... clothing... simple and complex stuff
[2014/10/02 13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: make life better
[2014/10/02 13:26] herman Bergson: Bejiita....
[2014/10/02 13:26] argus Portal: Is it nothing more than that ? here exists the idea, that we with all our ideas and troubles, are nothing more than vehicles for the DNA
[2014/10/02 13:26] argus Portal: *There
[2014/10/02 13:27] herman Bergson: Why other organisms are like us....there is no explanation....noting in evolution explains the emergence of self awareness, self consciousness
[2014/10/02 13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: exploring space for other places to live just in case
[2014/10/02 13:27] argus Portal: Why can something are that interested to spread into the universe. For what ?
[2014/10/02 13:27] argus Portal: This questions touches the core of all questions, i think
[2014/10/02 13:28] herman Bergson: The idea that something has a purpose...must have a purpose is a product of our brain only...
[2014/10/02 13:28] argus Portal: yes
[2014/10/02 13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2014/10/02 13:28] argus Portal: thats it
[2014/10/02 13:28] herman Bergson: The only thing we really can say about this planet and us is that we are....
[2014/10/02 13:29] Bejiita Imako: i guess so
[2014/10/02 13:29] herman Bergson: Ind I would suggest..let's make the best of it ^_^
[2014/10/02 13:29] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[2014/10/02 13:29] argus Portal: what is the best ? What means to be happy ?
[2014/10/02 13:29] Dawn Rhiannyr: oh yes :)
[2014/10/02 13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: not easy these days
[2014/10/02 13:29] Bejiita Imako: to feel good i guess
[2014/10/02 13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: media is surrounding us by fear
[2014/10/02 13:30] herman Bergson: ok...what is the best...:-))
[2014/10/02 13:30] argus Portal: Bejiita: Thats just another word ;-)
[2014/10/02 13:30] herman Bergson: What do you think, Phaeton?
[2014/10/02 13:30] Dawn Rhiannyr: what makes you feel good I guess
[2014/10/02 13:30] herman Bergson: this isn’t about our subject anymore :-)
[2014/10/02 13:31] Bejiita Imako: when im happy im at my want to be normal state where all is as i want it to be
[2014/10/02 13:31] Bejiita Imako: and it just flows on
[2014/10/02 13:31] herman Bergson: We intend to focus on the questioin what is philsophy of science :-))
[2014/10/02 13:31] argus Portal: I think, happyness has much to do with "flow"
[2014/10/02 13:31] Bejiita Imako: you could say that
[2014/10/02 13:32] Bejiita Imako: thats one way
[2014/10/02 13:32] herman Bergson: There is no science of happiness, Argus :-)
[2014/10/02 13:32] herman Bergson: So it is outside oure scope atm :-))
[2014/10/02 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: /me GIGGLES!!
[2014/10/02 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...
[2014/10/02 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: drifting off course
[2014/10/02 13:32] argus Portal: could be :-)
[2014/10/02 13:32] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[2014/10/02 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: back to the 4 questions
[2014/10/02 13:33] herman Bergson: Yes, GEmma ..guess we are so far from home that we better can go home all :-))
[2014/10/02 13:33] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again...:-))
[2014/10/02 13:33] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[2014/10/02 13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: the philosopher observes science from a distance
[2014/10/02 13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[2014/10/02 13:34] argus Portal: Thank you
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: whispers: nice Herman!
[2014/10/02 13:34] Dawn Rhiannyr: thank you Herman :))
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[2014/10/02 13:34] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..:-))
[2014/10/02 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: see you Tuesday hopefully
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu
[2014/10/02 13:34] Bejiita Imako: bye all
[2014/10/02 13:34] argus Portal: goodnight all
[2014/10/02 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡
[2014/10/02 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: for now
[2014/10/02 13:34] Dawn Rhiannyr: good night everyone :)
[2014/10/02 13:35] Ciska Riverstone: good night dawn
[2014/10/02 13:35] Ciska Riverstone: sleep well ㋡
[2014/10/02 13:37] herman Bergson: and Ciska, what do you think..?
[2014/10/02 13:38] Ciska Riverstone: i must reread again - i had some wild iming inbetween and lost parts of the discussion - you are at a fundamental point .with this - yes...
[2014/10/02 13:39] herman Bergson: Well...wild IMing lady...:-))
[2014/10/02 13:39] herman Bergson: I hope you stil can handle all :-)
[2014/10/02 13:40] herman Bergson: See you next time again...
[2014/10/02 13:40] herman Bergson: Bye all
No comments:
Post a Comment