Support Aeon Donate now A strange thing is happening in modern philosophy: What makes this strange is that, not only does the new attitude run counter to much of the history of philosophy, but — despite loud claims to the contrary — it also goes against the findings of modern science.
The Nature and Philosophy of Science Introduction Scientists are unbiased observers who use the scientific method to conclusively confirm and conclusively falsify various theories.
These experts have no preconceptions in gathering the data and logically derive theories from these objective observations. Although such eminent views of science have been accepted by many people, they are almost completely untrue.
Data can neither conclusively confirm nor conclusively falsify theories, there really is no such thing as the scientific method, data become somewhat subjective in practice, and scientists have displayed a surprisingly fierce loyalty to their theories.
There have been many misconceptions of what science is and is not. Science is a project whose goal is to obtain knowledge of the natural world.
The philosophy of science is a discipline that deals with the system of Nature of philosophy itself. The Basic Structure of Science To properly understand the contemporary philosophy of science, it is necessary to examine some basic components of science.
The components of science are data, theories, and what is sometimes called shaping principles.
This is because the specific details of data that come into play can make science such a tricky business that some scientists, when talking to laymen, sometime leave them out. Also, it is easy to fit a theory in with the data if the data are vague and overgeneralized.
It usually becomes more difficult to fit the theory with specific data, especially since the details make it more likely for the theory to become less plausible.
Even so, data are important parts of theories and of science. Contrary to what some might think, a theory in the scientific sense does not have anything to do with whether or not it is supported by the evidence, contradicted by the evidence, well liked among scientists, and so forth.
That is, just because a theory is a scientific theory does not mean that the scientific community currently accepts it. There are many theories that, though technically scientific, have been rejected because the scientific evidence is strongly against it.
Phenomenological theories are empirical generalizations of data. They merely describe the recurring processes of nature and do not refer to their causes or mechanisms. Phenomenological theories are also called scientific laws, physical laws, and natural laws. It says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Explanatory theories attempt to explain the observations rather than generalize them.
|Philosophical Theology / Traditional Metaphysics / Perennial Philosophy / Ancient Cosmology||His mother died only a few days later on July 7, and his only sibling, an older brother, ran away from home when Rousseau was still a child.|
|Precursors of existentialism||His mother died only a few days later on July 7, and his only sibling, an older brother, ran away from home when Rousseau was still a child. Rousseau was therefore brought up mainly by his father, a clockmaker, with whom at an early age he read ancient Greek and Roman literature such as the Lives of Plutarch.|
|‘Worldly and thought-provoking, there’s nothing on the internet quite like Aeon.’||Existentialism, true to its roots in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, was oriented toward two major themes:|
|Historical survey of existentialism||Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural historyin that natural philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature and after Galileoquantitative reasoningwhereas natural history was essentially qualitative and descriptive.|
Whereas laws are descriptions of empirical regularities, explanatory theories are conceptual constructions to explain why the data exist. For example, atomic theory explains why we see certain observations. The same could be said with DNA and relativity. Explanatory theories are particularly helpful in such cases where the entities like atoms, DNA, and so forth cannot be directly observed.
Why are they necessary?
Surprisingly, the answer is no. Describing some mistaken views of science come in handy for explaining the answer. Mistaken Beliefs of the Scientific Method Many students including me were brought up with a somewhat eminent view of science, or at least a fairly eminent view of science as it should be done.
As I have found however, the status of science which most of us were taught may have been a bit misleading. This is perhaps because scientists themselves tend to be ignorant of the philosophy of science. In the early years of science, the system of acquiring knowledge was viewed as completely objective, rational, and empirical.
These kinds of things had to be prevented from infecting science so that knowledge could be reliably obtained. Baconian inductivism in the early seventeenth century was at one point considered to be the scientific method.The Modeling of Nature: The Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis Illustrated edition Edition.
A strange thing is happening in modern philosophy: many philosophers don’t seem to believe that there is such a thing as human nature. What makes this strange is that, not only does the new attitude run counter to much of the history of philosophy, but – despite loud claims to the contrary – it also goes against the findings of modern science.
This book was written by the last living (now deceased) of the original so-called River Forest Thomists William Wallace. The aim of the book is to give a precise and systematic account of both the philosophy of nature and the philosophy of science from the Thomistic point of view.
Philosophy Introduction to Logic The Nature of Philosophy and Logic. Abstract: The subjects of philosophy and logic are broadly characterized. Philosophical Theology / Traditional Metaphysics / Perennial Philosophy / Ancient Cosmology.
William A. Wallace, "Thomism and the Quantum Enigma", Review of Wolfgang Smith, The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key, in The Thomist 61 (): Wolfgang Smith, "Response to Stephen Hawking", Sophia: The Journal of Traditional Studies, Volume 16, No.
2 (): 5– This is an ambitious and important book. Ambitious because it attempts to place the main concerns and discussions of contemporary philosophy within a historical perspective; important because this is all too rarely attempted within our present philosophical culture, and almost never done this well.