I am interesting in opinion about the role of philosophy of science for scientists representing all areas of science, from different countries.
Philosophy of science is an important scientific and cultural (sic!) asset for any scientist, researcher, scholarly writer or manager of research projects. It is part of the self-reflexive and self-critical attitude of any serious scientist, researcher, scholarly writer or manager of research projects. Lack of this attitude raises doubts about their seriousness.
Sometimes, for some people, too much attention to philosophy of science may lead to an impasse, because by definition philosophy of science tries to work out an idealistic reconstruction and standard for scientific processes and products. This impasse comes from two facts we have to live with:
Most scientists know less than a handful of (famous and mainstream) philosophers of science. Many may think that Popper & Co have said all what can be said about doing good scientific work. That's quite shortsighted.
- First, the views and opinions of Popper have been severely criticized, again and again (see link).
- Secondly, before and after Popper, you may easily find more than ten serious counter-proposals for a philosophy of science.
It is even questioned and debated whether it is possible at all to come up with a philosophy of science which is generally valid and applicable. The argument is that each broad enough scientific discipline may require its own kind of philosophy of science. For instance, the natural sciences may require quite another philosophy of science than the social sciences (although many social researchers believe that they basically follow the principles and tenets of physical researchers, which is not, or at least arguable).
Even if you don't like philosophy (of science) at all, it is an important part of your scientific attitude and behavior, to steadily question what you are researching and how you do it. If you don't, you are probably just doing "normal science" (Kuhn's paradigm), i.e. repeating what is obvious or plausible in order to reject or confirm what is already known or guessed. You will never find the really interesting and perplexing new facts which could make a real difference.
Link:
- http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm
The highest degree a student can get naturally from one University is Doctor of Philosophy. It is same in all subjects - Mathematics, Medicine, Botany, History or English literature.
In any branch of science, research reaches to philosophical explanation of the subject after attaining one height.
In ancient times, every logical discussions we're considered as Philosophy. It is correct for ever.
It is good to know what you are doing (an absolutely general remark). If you are doing science, it is good to know what "doing science" is. Or else you might unknowingly be doing pseudoscience, or nonscience instead (see Bunge 1984, "What is Pseudoscience"). Very briefly, this reflection is provided by Philosophy of Science.
Here Science itself is the object of philosophical reflection. Philosophy also specializes in studying other objects: Philosophy of Being = Ontology (or, with some caveats, Metaphysics); Philosophy of Knowledge = Epistemology, etc. Of course, Science studies Beings, accumulating Knowledge about them, etc. Therefore Philosophy of Science is kind of eclectic.
A very stubborn scientist might say: "I don't care about any Philosophy, get lost you morons". But then, talking of his field of study, he is likely to say: "On my view, this is important in my work, that I will have to look into, this will not let me make progress, ...". Philosophy pure. Instead of developing his own, private philosophy of science, he would be well-advised to look into Philosophy of Science that is already there. Just a little.
It is truly necessary to grow as a scientist as a benefactor to the society.
Philosophy of Science is the study of the assumptions, foundations, and implications of natural science (which is usually taken to mean biology, chemistry, physics, earth science and astronomy, as opposed to social science which deals with human behaviour and society).
Hi,
The first of many classical philosophers and philosophers developed a set of fundamental differences and differences between science and philosophy to arrive at a conclusion: There can be no connection between philosophy and science, or there is any connection between them. For example, science aims to describe phenomena and events In nature, while philosophy aims to explain some phenomena completely comprehensive explanation does not care about the particulars and details, and science descriptive in the basis of it is worthy of merit attribute of objectivity; because it resorts to observation and experience in all stages taken by scientific theory to be a scientific theory sincere, The philosophical limits of philosophy transcend the tangible world to look at issues beyond this world, while the boundaries of science are the limits of the tangible world that we see and touch. , And does not exceed it in any way, and make this matter depends on the rule of science on the provisions of the report, while the provisions on which the philosophy is the normative provisions, namely: the provisions looking at what should be human behavior in accordance with the great values that are the values of right and goodness and beauty. Finally, science - according to the classical perception that lists differences and differences between it and philosophy - is separate from its history; because the history of science can not benefit contemporary science in any way; because the theories and the results of the history of science have been exceeded, , While philosophy is close to its history, and can not be separated from him, because it is the material philosophy. But this view makes the relationship between science and philosophy a wrestling relationship; it deliberately ignores the need for science to philosophy, and the need for philosophy to science.
It is true that philosophy and science - by describing them as cultural manifestations - each seek their own way to reach truth or truth, which is confirmed by the history of philosophy and science together; because this history is the history of the human mind itself seeking to reveal The unknown at the human and natural levels; if the approach of philosophy is the approach of the question to detect the ambiguity of the world around us for the same person, the approach of science seeks to achieve this task also by searching for the means that bring us control of nature for human well-being. Throughout the history of philosophy and science, we have found progress on both the intellectual and philosophical levels, which indicate that any future progress requires the existence of philosophy and science together, or the existence of a philosophy of capable science To develop a scientific knowledge system on which the human being is aware of the world around him and explain it. Without this scientific knowledge system developed by the philosophy of science, human consciousness becomes a mere machine or biological phenomenon subject to study according to the curricula of pure mathematical and physical sciences. As our Arab reality is witnessing a decline in the level of scientific thinking on the one hand, and the level of philosophical thinking on the other, it is necessary to create a philosophy of science that gives us a comprehensive view through which science is aware. This awareness helps us to understand the cultural and cultural dimensions that help scientific progress. We desperately need it.
In the late 20th century, there was a rational view that the fundamentals of the correct scientific understanding of phenomena and events in the natural world were not based on a set of rigid and rigid laws. Rather, human interpretations of phenomena, cognitive backgrounds and values that moved this or that world Thus, the neutral objectivity of science has ceased to exist, and the idea of a single, coherent scientific approach characterized by consistency, precision and rigor has ceased to exist. This has led to the disappearance of various forms of scientific and philosophical knowledge that seek to impose legitimacy according to rules and principles And methods and theories specific to each scientific achievement or philosophical, in addition to the rejection of this rational vision of absolute truth or absolute truth in science and philosophy together; that honesty which was intended to distinguish scientific or philosophical theory of the other. It was in this spirit that the rational vision rejected the conservative character of classical science, as well as classical philosophy; that nature, which tended towards stability and stability, aimed at establishing and rationalizing every existing situation as the best possible situation.
To function effectively as a researcher, you can excuse yourself of basic theories in scientific philosophy. It should be a requirement in the dispensation of higher education.
I will try to answer the question by asking the following:
- Is induction a well established principle?
- Do elementary particles exist?
- What are empirical facts?
- What makes a good experiment?
- Is science influenced by external entities such as society?
Most scientist will claim that the answer to these questions are obvious, and whoever thinks so should start your reading in philosophy of science. These questions form the foundation of what we do, and there is still debate on these questions. Every scientist should be conversant in these foundational topics and be part of the dialogue with philosophers.
Philosophy is usually dismissed by scientist as being just nitpicking hairsplitting exercise that leads to nowhere. I find that this is very short sighted on the part of the scientific community, and that we should hear more from philosophers. I also encourage philosophers to engage more in the scientific quest, since both can benefit from each other.
Knowledge of science is something from the within ,It has his roots in the 5 valuable elements in the nature & to implementing it within the knowledge for the benefits of the human beings , science serves with the noble cause. We are aware that scientists serve with the noble cause & if we view the science in the same shade scientists obviously work under indirectly the norms of their working under the philosophical norms & in this line scientists work in the line of his philosophical thinking .
This is my personal opinion
For a clear, succinct, illustration of how philosophy of science can help researchers understand themselves and the research and publication process, see these two related applications of Deborah Mayo's error statistical theory (the application happens to be to geography, but the illustration has much broader scope):
Article Is engaged pluralism the best way ahead for economic geograp...
Article Error, quality, and applied geography: An editorial on process
Very interesting part of the essential research towards which I try to open myself. http://www.sphere.univ-paris-diderot.fr/spip.php?article1799
This question is related to another question discussed on researchgate, namely whether philosophy of science requires familiarity with knowledge of a particular scientific domain (https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_philosophy_of_science_is_the_better_philosopher_one_who_has_been_a_scientist_and_has_done_hands-on-research_or_not?view=5a391ae2fb8931ed757742cf ). I argued there that indeed philosophy of science nowadays requires some familiarity with the main methods, assumptions and theories of a field. Yet, philosophy of science offers the conceptual and analytical tools to articulate these in a certain discipline and critically reflect upon them. So yes, particularly for scientists who aim to contribute critically and with innovations to a field it is helpful to have some philosophical expertise. For example, the idea that science - let alone philosophy of science - is relying on natural laws (as is remarked above) is not at all generally true. Indeed, there are many scientific fields where natural laws are more or less absent (cf. in life sciences, cognitive sciences) and in many fields explanatory mechanisms are developed. Yet other fields produce more qualitative insights or interpretative results. Philosophy can help to distinguish and evaluate such differences, allowing the coordination and -potential- integration of those differences. I've discussed some of these issues in our 'An introduction to interdisciplinary research' (https://www.academia.edu/22420234/An_Introduction_to_Interdisciplinary_Research._Theory_and_Practice )
Good research question:
How could, or should, the philosophy of science guide a researcher?
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science.” - Albert Einstein
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_of_science_to_guide_researchers
Dear @Issam have had an excellent research question with almost 1000 responses and many resources!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection
It is so important,
"The study of philosophy enables you to think carefully, critically, and with clarity, take a logical approach to addressing challenging questions and examining hard issues", and these are indispensable for scientist. https://philosophy.cas2.lehigh.edu/content/why-study-philosophy
Dear @Ahmad, you must cite the origin of the part of your answer: " The study of philosophy will enable you to think carefully, critically, and with clarity, take a logical approach to addressing challenging questions and examining hard issues ...", as , otherwise, you make bad practice of plagiarism!!!
Links follow:
http://www.mic.ul.ie/academicdepts/philosophy/Pages/WhatisPhilosophyandWhystudyit.aspx
https://philosophy.cas2.lehigh.edu/content/why-study-philosophy
wel, philosophy that's how science started.
(otherwise scientists become technicians)
I am food scientist, I believe that we do meticulous and creative work that needs dedication and ethics. My basic philosophy is we do science for people to make their life better.
Best regards
Aly R Abdel-Moemin
About a year ago I replied to a similar question about interrelations of physics and philosophy - see the links below:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_of_physics_is_socially_determined
and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_theoretical_physicists_are_actual_philosophers
It is the same discussion but just two different parts of it.
Hopefully, you will find it interesting and educational.
As you know, the philosophy addresses issues that can’t be settled by facts alone, and that the philosophy of science is the application of this approach to the domain of science. There are some concepts like induction, evidence, and method in scientific research. It can say science proceeds by induction, the practices of drawing on past observations to make general claims about what has not yet been observed, but that philosophers see induction as inadequately justified, and therefore problematic for science. And then there is the difficulty of deciding which evidence fits which hypothesis uniquely, and why getting this right is vital for any scientific research. As a fact ‘the scientific method’ is not singular and straightforward, and that there are basic disputes about what scientific methodology should look like. Lastly, although these issues are ‘philosophical’, they nevertheless have real consequences for how science is done.
It is very important to have basic though for scientific method , some of these though may be a philosophy ,
If we come back to the first philosophers, like Talets Anaximandro Anassimene, we know that they observed Nature to discover the universal principle that sustained and determined it. So Philosophy started as an investigation into Nature. Then the field of investigation extended his reflection to the Man and to his Thought (or Reason) and this influenced the research purely aimed at Nature and its laws . The example can be Aristotle and its final causes towards which everything moved. Philosophy of Aristotle influenced scientific research until the seventeenth century. It was Galileo that changed the route and started experimenting. But Galileo himself was still convinced that there were immutable principles such as the perfect circular motion of the orbits of he planets.
What does this mean?
This means that science is often victim of these errors and Philosophy, reflecting on scientific thought, can understand which factors influence the research and could divert the route.
A broader outlook on scientifc methodology (ideas and methods) would be an enrichment, e.g. history of exact science and technology, but also methodical thinking and creative writing.
It is noble to serve faith in science, even blindly, like an ant, by applying method given (and trusted to be tested, good Method). But if I want to call myself a scientist, a free man seeking true, justified beliefs with no crutches of Authority, I need first of all to understand what a belief is, what choices of justification there are and not less what "true" (and Truth") means. Neuro-scientists will explain all this away as brain-cell firings but I still see such questions as philosophy.
Moreover what is knowing? Is there such thing without a knower? Is there knower non-human? Here opens the gate of doubt, ushering honest science; not discouraged agnostic science bu humble, open science. Peace and wisdom to all of us! A happy new Year 2018!
Every scientist is an expert in his field. He is philosopher in his field.
Best regards
Linking philosophy and method in the research process: the case for realism!
The early stages of a research study involve much thought, reflection and planning. A clear understanding of the philosophical basis of the research strategy is important for a number of reasons. It helps to clarify research design; enables recognition of whether the strategy will or will not work; helps to identify and create designs beyond past experience...; helps to ensure consistency in the application of different methods to a research question; and provides grounding for research methods within an accepted epistemological paradigm. This differentiates academic work from lay knowledge, by increasing its validity...
Article Linking philosophy and method in the research process: the c...
Philosophy is apart of science, so it is difficult to deal with science without part of philosophy.
Philosophy of science is an important scientific and cultural (sic!) asset for any scientist, researcher, scholarly writer or manager of research projects. It is part of the self-reflexive and self-critical attitude of any serious scientist, researcher, scholarly writer or manager of research projects. Lack of this attitude raises doubts about their seriousness.
Sometimes, for some people, too much attention to philosophy of science may lead to an impasse, because by definition philosophy of science tries to work out an idealistic reconstruction and standard for scientific processes and products. This impasse comes from two facts we have to live with:
Most scientists know less than a handful of (famous and mainstream) philosophers of science. Many may think that Popper & Co have said all what can be said about doing good scientific work. That's quite shortsighted.
- First, the views and opinions of Popper have been severely criticized, again and again (see link).
- Secondly, before and after Popper, you may easily find more than ten serious counter-proposals for a philosophy of science.
It is even questioned and debated whether it is possible at all to come up with a philosophy of science which is generally valid and applicable. The argument is that each broad enough scientific discipline may require its own kind of philosophy of science. For instance, the natural sciences may require quite another philosophy of science than the social sciences (although many social researchers believe that they basically follow the principles and tenets of physical researchers, which is not, or at least arguable).
Even if you don't like philosophy (of science) at all, it is an important part of your scientific attitude and behavior, to steadily question what you are researching and how you do it. If you don't, you are probably just doing "normal science" (Kuhn's paradigm), i.e. repeating what is obvious or plausible in order to reject or confirm what is already known or guessed. You will never find the really interesting and perplexing new facts which could make a real difference.
Link:
- http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm
Links:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
Article Models in Science
- https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/theories-scientific/v-1/sections/the-semantic-conception
Many problems within the sciences dealing with very complex phenomena suffer under a poor understanding of philosophy of science. Not because the actual philosophical positions have practical importance to scientific research, but because many controversies and confusions within scientific research programs are rooted in conceptual ambiguities and lack of useful conceptual resources that are employed across the board within the philosophical community to adress questions involving precisely those kinds of problems. It is not just familiarity with the conceptual tools of philosophy of science that could help out, but the tools of metaphysics and ontology. There are many examples from sociology, organizational theory and other areas that employ scientific methods to address questions about the order of things. I don't think that individual researchers have to study these topics. I think the solution is to pair up across fields (as is customary in large scientific projects anyways). In this way much brain-straining quabbles could be swept out of the way quickly. I can give an example: Within stakeholder theory there are many debates raging about how to explain the very content of the theory.
How can we both wish to talk about how organizations work and how managers can influence, while at the same time we are proposing a normative, prescriptive theory?
Some people then go on and argue that you won't get any grasp on how managers can influence as a result of normative theory (introducing Hume's law), others claim that this is positivist thinking and that stakeholder theory rejects such distinctions, and others claim that it expresses propositions with "layers" and so on. These debates depend on a fundamental lack of analytical tools and leads to treatments that slide back and forth between lucid, even trivial truth on the one hand, and actual nonsense on the other. If the confusions where cleared up, the discussions would instead revolve around mapping out the possible theories, and then the task of deciding between incompatible theories, and expanding upon them would be the main concern. So, in short, I think that the less mature sciences could benefit from more interdisciplinary research, and philosophers (or knowledge of philosophy) could help structure this kind of cooperation in a productive manner.
Here is another important reference to a modern approach to philosophy of science, not in the abstract but bottom up:
Link:
- https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521180252
That is an important question for me who has been a physicist. Though i work now in epistemology, and was specialised in th 17e century, I am still talking every day with physicists.
I don't know if philosophy of science helps for innovation and creativity in sciences; and actually I doubt it. Considering a true philosopher of science as Henri Poincaré, he may have become defiant towards new theories because of his deep thinking about the contingency and relativity of all generalisations.
But scientists are men or women - after all - or better say : firt of all. And I think that philosophy is usefull to know what we are doing actually, to understand better what lies under our usual and somtimes dull job in research, in physics as well as in history of science, to become actually thinking men and women, and to be abble to criticize what is going on, as citizens or as human beeings. That needs philosophy in general, but philosophy of science may be easier, first, for a scientist, grounded in the history of his discipline.
@ Christiane Vilain : Nice answer, food for more discussion!
- Henri Poincaré was really a multi-talent: engineer, mathematician, philosopher. I guess, few of us can be such multi-talents ... but in any way he was certainly aware of the importance of epistemology and methodology, and didn't regard it as contra-productive to the conduct of scientific research as such. Perhaps what he would object against, is to talk too much about research without doing it yourself?
- Your last paragraph reminds me of two other approaches to the study of scientific research: the psychological approach on the one hand, and the sociological approach on the other hand. Both approaches have some tradition by now, and there are some interesting books on those subjects. Thus philosophy of science doesn't tell us everything about science, it has its own limits.
As in all scientific disciplines, there is a mainstream (standard = orthodox) philosophy of science (which may change in the course of history) and all the rest, scattered in many more or less divergent (non-standard = unorthodox) views or philosophies on the goals and practices of science.
Here, I am using the word "science" in its original inclusive meaning, i.e. not just natural sciences (as in anglo-american countries) but all scientific disciplines including e.g. philosophy, logic and mathematics, as customary in all universities around the world.
One of the most fascinating, indeed compelling views has been elaborated and articulated by Carlo Cellucci in this papers and recent books, which I recommend to anyone who is interested in a alternative heuristic philosophy of science:
Links:
- http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319532363 (Rethinking Knowledge)
- http://www.springer.com/la/book/9789400760905 (Rethinking Logic)
I agree with all the contributions, especially with the one made by Paul Hubert Vossen and Luca Noro
Of course it is fundamental for all scientists to be knowledgeable and practicing Philosophy and Theory of Knowledge.
regards
Jose Luis
For you to be a great scientist, you have to be a philosopher. For science originates from philosophy.
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
- Richard Feynman
“Science is essentially an anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.”
- Paul Karl Feyerabend
“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.”
- Bertrand Russell
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” (Len Leonid Mizrah)
Comment: I didn't know that birds have self-consciousness ...
Link:
- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Len_Mizrah/answers
Philosophy of science is like a compass: although it doesn't tell you what to do next, it shows you the way to go.
No sane person will throw away his compass, if he is standing in the middle of nowhere.
In science as well as life, we are forever standing in the middle of nowhere, because it is impossible for us to make even halfway perfect statements about our perceived reality, let alone objective reality in the near or not-so-near future. Moreover, reality is not static, on the contrary: reality is continuously changing and unfolding, and it may be slightly or even deeply different from observer to observer. Even physicists know and acknowledge that - at least since Einstein's relativity theory.
As a matter of fact, even our compasses may be highly unreliable and subjective at any given point in time, so we have to continuously calibrate our compass anew, both with nature's reality and among ourselves. But that doesn't imply, that this compass is worthless.
The alternative would be to fall back into complete ignorance and superstition of the middle ages or dark ages. However, complete ignorance and superstition are not an option for a self-conscious being like man.
[2018-02-11]
@ Paul Hubert Vossen Thanks for the Cellucci reference. Cellucci, Carlo - Rethinking Knowledge The Heuristic View - Springer 2017
It gives some thought-provoking historic discussion about the evolving relationship of philosophy and science (and more) It also presents Science as an activity of knowing, of eternal approximation, done by Life itself, by the Human... not by some supra human objective entity... Good reading!
Knowledge about the philosophy of science increases the understanding of the scientist in his scientific field. I believe that most scientists have this knowledge but may not be aware that it is a philosophy.
I'm a mathematician. And I do not think I need to know philosophy of science to do mathematics.
Clearly, I know a little bit of philosophy but it doesn't help me in proving theorems.
Dear Dr. Grzegorz K. Jakubiak
The knowledge converges from broad to narrow in a shape of cone. Every each scientist is to carry ahead the present knowledge about a philosophy of science in sequential way.
Apparently and not very much surprisingly there are two kinds of mathematicians:
- those who do their (more or less routine) work in whatever branch of mathematics they are interested in
- those who constantly reflect about what they are doing and try to escape from trodden paths hoping to find new interesting ways of looking at and doing mathematics
I admire both types of mathematicians, but I feel closer to those in the second category.
@ Peter Griepink:
Fascinating subject, Peter! I am puzzled by a grand question, maybe you want to give your opinion. As some people believe that mathematics correspond to the structure of the whole Universe while others believe that we find mathematics everywhere because we count things:
Are there things which you would list as not being subjects of mathematics? Which ones?
I realise that this is a subsidiary of the question: What things that exist are not of the domain of logic?
Tough, I know, but what do you think?
The science guy said he learned the importance of major philosophical figures. “People allude to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle all the time, and I think many of us who make those references don’t have a solid grounding,” he said. “It’s good to know the history of philosophy.”
Nye was particularly taken by epistemology, an area of philosophy concerned with knowledge. He said he was struck by the argument that a “justified true belief” constitutes factual knowledge. Indeed, philosophy has long been instrumental in determining what facts, including scientific facts, are truly valid. (This continues to be true as science advances to a realm were it no longer makes testable predictions.)
Nye is now convinced philosophy and science overlap, with both fields in pursuit of the justified true belief. “It’s an intimate connection,” he said. “What used to be called a ‘natural philosopher’ is now called a scientist.”
https://qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/
@Ioan Tenner : "... some people believe that mathematics correspond to the structure of the whole Universe ... " Are you referring to Max Tegmark:
Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0241954630
Thanks to the old Greek philosophers like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle (were they scientists, too?) we have re-entered a discussion which is probably entirely incomprehensible to non-Westerns. Paraphrasing Asterix/Obelix: "Those Westerns, they're nuts!"
P.S.: I love to read science fiction, including books about our world being a mathematical object or a video game. Why not?
Dear Dr. Grzegorz K. Jakubiak
A level of varying threshold of basic knowledge about philosophy of science is important for research to research.
I am an automation engineer, thus I find very important the role of phylosophy of science and phylosophy of engineering!
From Philosophy of Science to Philosophy of Engineering: The Case of AI
The interest in the interaction between philosophy and engineering has rapidly grown in the last years. Engineering, dealing with the exploitation of scientific knowledge for modeling concrete problems, seems to present several issues worth discussing from a philosophical point of view. Despite many valuable works, a detailed and systematic assessment of the field requires further attention, as it has been recognized from different parts. A common sense view considers the philosophy of engineering as an area of the philosophy of science, that part concerning in particular the applicative issues of science. This view lies on the idea that engineering is ‘just’ applied science. Accordingly, the philosophical problems of the philosophy of engineering would be ‘just’ the problems of analyzing the passage from theory to application, as if a clear-cut distinction between science and engineering should exist.
This talk is a contribution in the direction of a philosophy of engineering considered as partly autonomous from the philosophy of science. If, from the one side, the philosophy of engineering shares with the philosophy of science the goal to critically analyze scientific-technological problems, from the other side, the philosophy of engineering presents some interesting differences. I claim that these differences concern the types of problems analyzed and the method adopted to solve them. For this reason, the philosophy of engineering needs to be assessed partially independently from the philosophy of science...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.542.3870&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Having been completely focused on the task(s) (quantum formalism and related calculations and mathematical developments) over my half-century career, I am now becoming aware of the importance of philosophy of sciences and epistemology and of my abyssal ignorance about it!
Good remark, Jean-pierre ! It is time now to think about it, and I can tell you that it is very interesting and pleasant.
Bonne chance pour la suite,
Christiane
@ Emmanouil Markoulakis 2 months ago " There is a fine distinction between knowledge aka information and wisdom. Wisdom is a process and skill by which the truth is obtained from the given information or even deduced. Unless you were born wise, very rare, intelligence and information alone is not enough to obtain wisdom aka awareness of the truth.
Wisdom is usually crafted through experience therefore needs time, trial and error.
In that sense, good scientists are essentially good philosophers (friends - masters - doctors of wisdom) and therefore science can't be nothing else than truth awareness and philosophy."
Interesting point about wisdom. let me propose though that wisdom is not the obtaining of truth = justified beliefs, bur instead the interpretation of that Impersonal truth in human terms allowing living subjectivities (persons) to make sense about their world, themselves, their life in order to live it better and to flourish... the ones doing this publicly are (common sense) thinkers rather than (or added to) being scientists and philosophers.
Western thinkers turned every stone upside down of the road to science - why waste all that good work?
(the "Problem of universals" and the problem of the observer in quantum physics - there are much more similarities than differences)
Why do things twice when they have already been done before in an excellent way?
Philosophy is at the origin of all science.
The problem as I see it .... there are Great Gaps between Seeing & Believing to Knowing & Making to Understanding & Improving ...
Open access article by Springer: Science and Philosophy: A Love–Hate Relationship
Shouldn’t the education of future scientists somehow reflect the connection that we have found between the sciences and philosophy? Indeed, particularly in the context of liberal arts and sciences, it is key that education reflects that connection. Science students in modern liberal arts and sciences programs should receive training in philosophy specific to their particular sciences...
Article Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship
I have recently read two recommended books on the philosophy of science and 2 books on the philosophy of Psychology. I found absolutely nothing useful, but plenty available to derail decent thinking. These "folks" are disconnected..
>>>Brad Jesness : without further details, like
- which books?
- which authors?
- which reviewers?
- which publishers?
your statement doesn't tell us much. Most (even recommended) textbooks don't contain useful (?) things for mature scholars and researchers like you and me. Why should they, their purpose is not to educate or entertain us.
Instead of referring to disconnected (?) books, please give us one or more examples of "connected" ones. That would help us much to understand the likely reasons for it.
Could it be that your working definition of "decent thinking" is so much different (in language or concepts) from those authors' approach or paradigm, that mutual understanding is virtual impossible? Again, that doesn't tell us much about the intrinsic value of those works. In such cases, it is better to hold with Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Dear Paul Hubert Vossen
I have only 3 of the books handy (and they all appear to be on the philosophy of Psychology):
A Critical History and Philosophy of Psychology by Walsh, Teo, and Baydala (2014)
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Psychology by Weiskopf and Adams (2015)
and
Philosophy of Psychology a contemporary introduction by Bermudez (2005)
I will try to find the third and maybe a fourth (I live in a pigsty and only have limited time right now -- it is time for my weekly dinner outing). Hopes this bit helps.
About "well connected" sources: there probably are none. If you read me over the years (3+), you will find me just critical (in a negative way) on philosophy; I do not support ANY amount of "armchairing" (because peoples' minds are just not that good to do that effectively). See my Answers in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory over the years and my Answers generally to know more. I beat philosophy "like a drum", though I may well myself be considered a philosopher (but there is no constructive reason to label myself so).
Dear Paul Hubert Vossen
Though you have been nice and even complimentary, I will address your statement : "... your working definition of "decent thinking" is so much different (in language or concepts) from those authors' approach or paradigm, that mutual understanding is virtual impossible" (end quote) Truth is that my perspective is MORE UNDERSTANDABLE due to the requirement of grounding/founding/"starts" in directly observable overt phenomenon (in psychology: behavior PATTERNS) FOR ALL (each and every) concept; THAT, present and traditional views and approaches LACK. It is the status quo nonsense that is not clearly understandable; AND, people do not even think they 'understand' until they "join one club or another" (which they do most often under some sophist professor's thumb AND they skip key necessary independent validation, themselves, of the field (e.g. see "embodiment" or "enhancement" 'theories') -- which would reveal to any thinking person what I said above and say below is the case). The result: Psychology as a whole is fundamentally facile (unstable and changing almost as with a whim), though one "club" or another may be most popular for a while (again, see those ridiculous and untestable "theories" I just mentioned -- going for 25 yr+ now). It is really just ridiculous when one realizes the necessary strict empiricism provably necessary for communication (AND FOR SCIENCE, which in good part simply involves good communication) -- and which you will find in every progressing/real science.
Brad Jesness
Conjecture confirmed:
As I said: there's no reason for you to read such books, as they are introductory, meant for students, and aimed at giving an overall picture or overview, so that students or young scientists may find their way and goal in science.
Almost by definition, you (sic!) won't find any really new things or ideas in it. That's not the intention of such books.
You have to turn to monographs which are clearly focussed on a single theory or phenomenon. Scanning a handful of eminent journals might help if you have an idea or hypothesis of yourself which you want to compare with others.
Zooming in (empirical research) is extremely important if you want to establish new facts and relationships in the world. Zooming out (theoretical reflection) is one way of connecting/disconnecting your facts and relationships with what is already well-known or accepted in other fields.
And then there are mathematics and philosophy, which IMHO are both branches of a broadly conceived LOGIC, though their intentions are clearly different: the first offers analytical instruments and tools for the empirical sciences (although much of mathematics is pure L'art pour L'art), the latter offers synthetic views and grand pictures - kind of antidote to the inevitable specialisation in the empirical sciences (and again, much of philosophy is done without direct contact with research, leaping behind, just rehearsing and reformulating what has been said before).
Some people are not interested in logic(s), they find it too abstruse or too far away from the busy and dirty world of doing empirical or theoretical research.
I believe, everybody may become happy in his own way, using the talents he or she has got and aiming for goals which satisfy his or her needs. For many contemporary researchers and scholars, it may even be that their profession is NOT their first motivation in life or that from which they get the highest satisfaction. *) They will invest just enough mental energy in their profession to keep their business running. For them, mathematics and philosophy are probably just boring and distracting parentheses around their own field of work (=empirical research"), for which they are not responsible and don't want to spoil their precious time: "Let others do that if they feel an urge to it. I am busy and happy enough in my own field, in my own laboratory and in my own network of colleagues doing the same stuff."
*) Example. One of my teachers at the University of Nijmegen was an experimental cognitive-psychologist, who was also a highly gifted painter. E.g., in his spare time, he copied one of Rembrandt's most famous paintings: The Night Watch, in the same size as its original, and according to many students who happened to see it, unbelievably truthful. Later, this teacher became a professor of psychology, but in Holland he became famous as an artist. Ref.: www.amazon.com/-/de/Structural-Information-Theory-Emanuel-Leeuwenberg/dp/1107531756
Dear Paul Hubert Vossen
Thank you for elaborating your position, though parts of it try to affirm some philosophy claims that I believe are just not true (Philosophy makes claims of worth it cannot actually show and cannot substantiate (except mine, of course)).
Brad Jesness
Nice to read that we agree on most positions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: Incidentally, I am not a philosopher. Remarkably, it was a university philosopher, who advised me when I was 18 years old that it would be better for me to start with a decent (empirical) discipline, to be prepared for a solid profession. When he heard about my talent for mathematics, he mentioned a brand new department called mathematical psychology. And so it happened. I never regretted to have chosen this way, although I am now researching in quite different areas. Real life can be quite quirky ....
Dear Paul Hubert Vossen
Noting the kind of work you do, you might want to look into Gozli's recent book (see the last few lines I just added (via Edit) to my last post).
Thanks, Brad, Gozli's recent book may indeed contain/offer a refreshing perspective on experimental psychology - trying to escape the ill-conceived adoption of methods of natural sciences in the human sciences.
see [added 2020-02-23]
[note to previous book recommendation, 2020-02-23]
But, by doing that, willy-nilly, he makes philosophical claims. Or rather - to be more precise - epistemological and ontological claims.
So if he is a sincere, self-conscious scientist I expect that he will make his claims, or assumptions, explicit, in the first and/or last chapter of his book.
And if he wants his theory or methodology to be more than one out of hundred, he ought to offer at least one or two critical-crucial experiments which - when successful - support the thesis that human sciences are fundamentally different from natural sciences, because their subjects are so different and/or the methods to study them must be different (for whatever reason).
That's is a tall order. Many have tried it for more than hundred-fifty years. And equally many deny it. Without much progress in the debate, except for a lot of "philosophical" discussions, books and articles - exactly the things you don't like at all.
But more importantly: he may have a massive opposition from established circles in academic research psychology, where the empirical-statistical tradition (based on some sort of Popperianism) is so strong that other explanatory frameworks will be vehemently fighted.
I also believe that many psychologists are not really interested in such discussions and experiments, because it might undermine the very ground on which they stand. In other words: it is too dangerous given the positions they have already taken in.
It is no happenstance that the author-scientist has moved to Macau .........
Ljubomir Jacić
Thanks for your reference to "Science and Philosophy: A Love–Hate Relationship". Just finished reading it. It tells the whole story.
Everybody who still believes and claims that the two can be easily separated without a loss for both sides, is arguably still caught in the post-war mantra so nicely described by Smolin: "Shut up and calculate!" (p. 11)
Metaphysics , Epistemology -Interdisciplinary .
Poster Great Job , Jaydip ! With 3189 New Reads your contributions ...
Jaydip Datta
What exactly are you proposing? How does it relate to our discussion here? The link doesn't give enough hints/details.
I think the philosophical concepts of health and disease are the most important in medicine.
For persons in this thread, for "therapy": See the Question and my partial Answer to " For Psychology (& other aspiring sciences & for many/all sciences): Isn't it better to speak & write in terms of "conditions-for" instead of 'causes'? " Link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/For_Psychology_other_aspiring_sciences_for_many_all_sciences_Isnt_it_better_to_speak_write_in_terms_of_conditions-for_instead_of_causes
Basic knowledge about the history of (exact) science and technology is paramount, to better understand the historically grown hierarchy of standard knowledge. The philosophical aspect is that of methodology, i.e. the historical evolution of human ideas about nature and the related methodical testing techniques.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science