By learning philosophy, a teacher would be able to view and analyze from the perspective of their students. Apart from understanding why students are behaving in a particular way, teachers would also be able to know how students perceive their actions. Just as if it helps students, it helps them as well .
By learning philosophy, a teacher would be able to view and analyze from the perspective of their students. Apart from understanding why students are behaving in a particular way, teachers would also be able to know how students perceive their actions. Just as if it helps students, it helps them as well .
An introductory course in psychology should be a minimum requirement in any curriculum.
Well Khansaa if this really happens, we would get more number of scientists at young age itself. We are human beings. Experience teaches. But had we followed the path of Philosophy earnestly and had we experimented with those learnings we would have grown intelligent.
Dear Rumani Dey, you wrote 'Without psychology science would not exist'? Maybe you mean philosophy.
Science (formal, natural, social) is depend on certain philosophical foundations: epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, axiology (ethics ad aesthetics). Without this foundation proper science can't exist.
See: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_philosophy_of_your_scientific_field_of_study
Dr. Rudi philosophy and psychology both are important in understanding. We practice philosophy to study psychology.
I completely agree with this talk because learning philosophy gives the ability for the professor or employee to convince others of his point of view or information, which he says in a clear and understandable manner by them.
Dear Rumani Dey, Logic is a formal science, you can say part of philosophy, and is important for every science. Psychology is a social science, it doesn't have to be used by or applied for the other sciences to function. I would say philosophy is necessary for the other sciences to function, but as far as I am concern psychology doesn't have that trait.
I think that's a good suggestion that I'm happy to support. The idea of a basic course in philosophy has a greater chance of being accepted - e.g. in the natural sciences - if the range of philosophical lectures is related to the respective field of study, i.e. it takes into account, for example, the theory of science of the relevant field of science.
Dr. Rudi I respect every perception. I am not saying you are wrong. I just wrote what I experienced.
Nice discussion dear Rumani Dey I feel philosopy needed both social and natural sciences.
Dear Rumani Dey , it's ok. Psychology is the study about human behavior and how the mind works (cognition). And I think you don't have to understand how the mind works to understand science or to practice it. But of course, psychology is very important, only I think without psychology science can exist.
You are asking wonderful questions.
The teaching of philosophy within the curriculum of secondary students helps to reflect on the importance of philosophy in society. Society is just a passive recipient in all areas. With the introduction of philosophy it will change, as seen by a number of interested, and society will work his mind and thought on many issues and topics and will not be held hostage to a particular social or religious group.
Well, it is chosen by under-grad students who want to continue in the field of psychology /philosophy etc which is a norm !!! Not everyone is interested in psychology or neuroscience . At least in my case it is a no no...
It would be too much for undergraduate programs especially bachelor and diploma.
الفلسفة من المعارف والمعلومات المفيدة التي تساهم في تطوير معلومات المتعلمين واكتشاف العلوم المرتبطة به
Teaching that accepted ideas are merely contingent would help students general thinking and enable them to question all or most other ideas.
Philosophy is an important factor for self-development, but this does not mean that all researchers should study and understand it. Perhaps some of the researchers need it
I am not sure philosophy and psychology are one and the same thing. Which one should we address Rumani Dey? In the context of this discussion, I view philosophy as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. On the other hand, psychology refers to the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in any given context. There are different kinds of philosophy and philosophy of science is one of such. It is one of the general study courses for undergraduate curricula in all Nigerian Universities.
They are two different streams which have to be taught separately according to me.
Dear Maurice Ekpenyong , I agree with you. Philosophy is indeed about the fundamental nature of knowledge. And every field of science (systematic approach to create and organize knowledge) has its own specific foundation (epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, ethics and aesthetics). Every one taking up a certain study must know its foundations, so you know what to study and how to do it and where you must concentrate to help creating a certain kind of knowledge. The nature of knowledge of the formal sciences are different from those of the natural and from the social sciences and the subfields of the social sciences differ: psychology studies something else than economy and Business Administration studies something else than e.g. Public Administration.
The philosophical foundations of every field of study must be taught to those taking up that study (field of science) or want to understand what it is about.
Philosophy should be practiced in order to understand the world. Experimenting with honesty brings knowledge about the world. You see as a researcher we ought to observe the world and experiment with it. You cannot be cruel to the world to find out about them. You have to study about your surroundings through ethical behavior. Example would be experimenting with honesty.
In which context do we get in contact with pilosophy? I try to think about the school systems that I know and in which educational discipline people get in contact with it. It is mostly tought in a reduction on historical, social or religious instructions.
I do not remember having heard anything about philosophy in the"Exact Sciences".... nevertheless they are very sustainably influenced by the philosophy they root on. We would urgently need to co-educate philosophy with any scientific discipline, otherwise coming researchers are not able to see on what fundament their work is really standing on and what limitations their current theories could have.
At the moment, the practical Materialism from the 19th century is the unrivaled cardinal philosophy in science and scientific education. It is claimed to be a "neutral and objective" tool to look on nature, but it is often not regarded that his structure is a more "religious" one. Agressive representants like Richard Dawkins and his "Physicism" or "Naturalism" are a good example for that: how you can overlook the limitations of your own philosophical base.
Co-educating Philosophy to every scientific disicipline could also help us to see, that almost every subject we are thinking about was thought before...a long time ago sometimes...
Dear Frank Höger , philosophy should be taught, but I think more important the philosophical base of every science: epistemology, metaphysics/ontology, methodology, axiology (ethics and aesthetics). Then you'll know what your science is about, which the foundations are, which problems you have to tackle, who the giants are on who's shoulders you have to stand.
Here I'm trying to collect as much as possible the philosophical foundations of the different sciences, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_philosophy_of_your_scientific_field_of_study
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy