Empirical science is on the rise and its methods are adopted to an increasing number of domains from psychology to education to economics. However, this method and epistemology is alien to commonsensual ontology (non-Aristotelian) and is often described as non-rational.
Although commonsense ontology is not widely accepted as a well-defined idea, it is a general agreement that this way of making conclusions is based on the Aristotelian categories of quantity and relation, the later meaning "talking about one thing with respect to another".
How does this affect their validity and scope ? What are the real drawbacks to this way of making conclusions ?
Dear Philippos Afxentiou,
Although adressing the issue in relation to Psychiatry research, I think you might like this paper:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/447596
All the best,
Dear Philippos Afxentiou,
Skepticism about empirical methods has often benefited the development of better and more careful methods of observation and experimentation. In the discipline of the history of science, there was a short-lived attempt to relate a particular field's expert's careful observations to common phenomena that everyone could relate to. You might be interested in the chapter on Optics and Skepticism by Richard Tuck in the following book--
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Conscience_and_Casuistry_in_Early_Modern/VQIKmMEX2bIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Conscience+and+Casuistry+in+Early+Modern+Europe&printsec=frontcover
best regards,
I strongly recommend Wilfrid Sellars' writings on the relation between "the scientific image" and "the manifest image": http://www.ditext.com/sellars/psim.html#2
Recall that the "empiricism" in an expression like "empirical science" means only "appealing to the evidence of our senses." However, this evidence is merely a brute causal event that does not compel any particular theoretical interpretation. Scientific knowledge does not proceed in the naive photographic way that Locke and early modern thinkers thought. Instead, pragmatic considerations figure in the mix.
So, in the end, the ultimate epistemological court of appeal is not "Do I/we taste/see/touch/smell/hear it" but rather "Does this way of glossing what I taste/see/touch/smell/hear prove predictive and serve my/our ends?"
Keep in mind, though, that there can be no "ends" in a disenchanted ontology of mere matter. Thus, the common sense world of the manifest image (with its medium-sized dry goods like tables and frogs) will not go away, no matter the advances of science.
This answer is to Mr Mark Maller :
The term common sense ontology is used by proponents of naive sophisticated physics, a theory that is compatible with common sense theories of physics (pre-Newtonian). Science does not use common sense ontology, like Arisotelian 10-category ontology but, from my perspective, a reduced ontology containing quantities and relationships between them. In response to this, they say Aristotelian ontology is vague and not well-defined, for example it lacks some elements of scientific styles like coherence and clarity of definitions but this is a criterion on the paradigm not of science inpedendent of paradigm.
With regards to Mrs Marc Champagne :
I would say that the predictive and serving one's ends epistemological court of appeal is not the "ultimate" but the post-Aristotelian one. Prediction-based science is a good one but it is not necessrily the ultimate as Kuhn and a few others demonstrated.
another question designed simply to open a vague can of worms to attract such broad variety of responses that debate is almost worthless.
Someone is playing games.
Can you explain who are the proponents of pre-Newtonian physics? And what do they see as belonging to it? How do you see common sense ontology?
Ontology is simply how you think about reality, for example if you believe there is an external world outside of your thoughts and feelings or whether you believe reality exists in your thoughts and feelings and is actually created by your thoughts and feelings.
How do you see common sense ontology? There are people with a very simple kind of common sense thinking and others capable of abstract thinking.
In my mind physics did not exist before Newton and everything was called Natural Studies, whether we call it chemistry now, or physics or biology or medicine. What Newton did was to come up with an explanation for what causes an apple to fall on the ground and he could describe that using the language of maths. His model could predict things that were measurable and therefore it was useful.
So what is pre-newtonian physics or common sense ontology?
To David: you may be right. I find the array of quasi-methodological terminology dizzying and illegible but then I start to think that this quasi-methodological-babble is quite fashionable in some parts of science now. However, your comment opens my eyes to the possibility that there are individuals out to sabotage every forum for scientific discussion, including this one.
which may not at all be the aim of this question.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication