Recently I started to read some works in philosophy of science. They are difficult but pleasant. I wondered what is the benefit of reading such difficult topics for doing advanced researches?
Very good question. In my opinion, good research is a fruit of good epistemology, whatever science it be.
Really a very good question. I think philosophical science or Arts or study is always brainstorming but it gives the research a philosophical stance and helps to run out the research in a pragmatic way. We can not separate theory from practice or applied from basic which is why grounded theory has formed. For example if you are working on Suicide then the the first and foremost way would be going through the literature's and earlier works. By going through this you will have a insight of what would be the method or which method is more suitable for carrying out your research.
The real reason for studying our objects is to solve some kind of problem that is related with that object. Science has to solve problem. Gibbons (The New Production of knowledge) shows good reflections about the need of a new grounded epistemology for the whole science.
The most obvious benefit of engaging in an 'epistemological examination' of the grounds of our knowledge is to become more and more sharp,focused and aware of the roots of our knowledge and how complex,varied and precarious these happen to be.It may or may not solve any problems of real life.Epistemology is the essence of the fruit of knowledge tree.When Nietzsche made his famous statement that, 'God is dead',who could tell that he was foretelling the rise of a post-modern epistemic condition to be faced by the man?Generations of philosophers and scientist have spent their lifetimes explicating the meaning of What Descartes' meant by 'cogito ergo sum'?What if men speak different languages and live in different cultures;they all seek the same eternal question about the reality of knowledge.How far our knowledge explains our existence and how reliable it is in moments crisis and catastrophe? Ahmad
I would add that not many researchers these days actually take the time to ponder this question, nor are educated in the foundational principles of how science examines the world. For myself, I find this to be a crucial element since it shapes not only our "knowing", but how we frame our questions, structure our methods, as well as data interpretation. Depending upon your area of expertise, there are usually several major groups of philosophical arguments that define a specific lens in which to frame the problem. Each argument depicts only specific elements of the problem and from there propose overarching principles and themes in which to conduct oneself. It can be viewed as the examination of our beliefs and values that shape our lives. Additionally, it it important to understand the cultural and gender components of such arguments. Even our philosophies are biased, so in order to understand how science works within this narrow framework is essential to understanding the limitations of such a practice. I think that anyone working without being aware of their own philosophical orientation (the pros and cons) is doomed to practice science without seeing the whole picture and therefore unable to potentially offer new knowledge that may prove invaluable in how we relate to the world.
Dear Angeline, I agree strongly with your ideas specially your statement: "anyone working without being aware of their own philosophical orientation...". On the other hand I believe that these are the theories that are being stated in textbooks generally without any details and clear examples. Thus reaching to a philosophical stance in science is not a mere theoretical but a practical endeavor.The difficult, sometimes impossible, part of the problem is that it regards our self cognition and it needs deep thinking and discussions(I would like to emphasize the dialectic part of the science). Recently I started to read some classical works on philosophy of science but I've got more confused than before. Its like a blury sea with no end and all of the theories are in contrast. If you have any enlighting idea or book available , please send me.
I think it's a good syntome of healthy thought, dear Hamidreza. Dialectics, understood as the approach to research object as it would be constructed by our own research, is necesary for defining correctly what are we going to do in our research, what are going to be our aims and methodology. In front of it, we can find a sort of "theory-of-models-than-always-work-correctly". For science, believing (as a blind) in models is an important brake for knowledge.
Dear Hamid; I would recommend, "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend.The book has been termed by its critics as an exercise in epistemological anarchism.But i honestly think that it breaks both" idols" and "idol makers" of the science.It liberates you from so many misconceptions about the "foundational" nature of our scientific episteme.Mostly new knowledge is discovered accidentally without even knowing in which " research program"(from Imre Lakatos) it fall and whats the epistemological nature of the research question involved?. Just take the example of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.The former collapsed the classical mechanics and the other ended the famous Russell-Whitehead project to reduce entire mathematics to few simple logical propositions. Yes another book "Personal Knowledge;Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" by Polanyi is also very valuable as it opens up a fresh and creative understanding of scientific knowledge..
Dear Ahmad Reza, thank you very much for your reading suggestions. I am familiar with oppinions of Feyerabend, although I didn't read his famous book. It seems to me that some of the methodologies in qualitative research have been emerged based on the uncertainities that you have pointed to them. On the other hand having no structure at all seems somehow dangerous. Having a research at hand that must be ended by a certain date, certain budget and certain goals seems to need a certain set of rules(methods) too.
The rules of doing science are shaped by a number of factors;political,social,economic and ideological.There is a politics of science as well as economics of science.But science has become destructive because of the ideological legitimation of the actors involved in it.Charles Sanders Pierce have done remarkable work on the economics of research,while Karl Mannheim have explored the ideological consequences of scientific work.Mostly scientist pursue scientific career because it brings money,social status and fame.The time has come where scientist must explore the limits and consequences of their 'methods'.The world has become a dangerous place due to technological innovations of scientific work.Nuclear stockpiles,ICBMs,Biological and Chemical weapons all are threatening the peace and security of our future generations on Earth.One trigger happy guy can destroy everything;science as well as its methods.The world needs a global ethical framework to outline what research is to be pursued and what to be banned.Clinton did the precise thing when he applied a moratorium on Human Genome Project.
Dear Hamidreza Mokhtari Aski,
I've tried to go inside this argument (in social sciences research) by analysing diffrent research phases. In particular in this chapter I tried to link the choice of different approaches to the available knowledge at starting point. It's a little thing, but I hope this could be useful to your interests.
One good reason could be preventing yourself from being lost in pure technical stuff
In Brazil, historically, LIS courses were designed quite different. Currently, philosophy of science as discipline constitutes a challenge in many Post-Graduate LIS courses. A recent bibliometric research about researcher's publishing in the country revealed that high level of researches in the country came from academic institution that usually include philosophy of science as a key discipline to improve researches.
Particularly in the LIS in Argentina there is a lack of basic disciplines like philosophy and lately it is having more awareness of the need to incorporate a range of disciplines from the social sciences and philosophy to promote and advance the development of theoretical studies and research in LIS.
I think a basic knowledge of philosophy (and sociology, anthropology...) of science is strictly necessary in order to be able to do a responsible and innovative research. You will not need to put lengthy quotations of Feyerabend or Popper, but you should know their general ideas in order to be able to locate your own research, to know what you want to do on the level of academic development - within your field, within the national academia, considering political aspects of your work.
In my opinion, the at times premature presentation of results of the so-called hard sciences or social sciences that think that they are hard sciences (political sciences and psychology, above all) happens due to a lack of reflection of their own work - a reflection that could be based on philosophy of science.
Yes, every researcher should have an appreciation of the philosophy of science. Every methodology is founded on a set epistemological and ontological assumptions. Once these become clear to you, you are able to appreciate the limitations and affordances of your research. If you are a PhD candidate your examiners will very likely expect you to make your epistemological and ontological assumptions explicit.
Just as the philosophy of knowledge is concerned with issues of ontology, and the Philosophy of Information cares to ponder as overload is propagated and applied by society, Philosophy of Science aims to understand what is science from the elements that comprise it. Specifically, this area of knowledge seeks to understand the impact of science on society, the economy, for a nation, both historically and for the future. Therefore, the philosophy of science seeks to understand the effects of the creations of meaning from social and circumstantial contingencies of the method of the communication process and the economy effects that supports it. So it does not bother to discuss the method in dichotomous or exploratory way.
In research "philosophy" plays a vital role. Researches are based on thinking. A matured thinking are the ofshoots of question. Philosophy adds in questioning with a perspective of the problem. Stonger philosophical bent of mind stronger in the bent of thinking and question. Whatever is the research may be science or technology or sociology, may be anthropology, or evan philiosophy every where requires mature, meaningful, syatematic questions. For getting answer with a system of such question is known as research. Thus research stems only from philosophy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology