Philosophy of science

[vern]

---

The fact nga wala gi close ni Vern ang topic immediately means that it was allowed (or given leeway) primarily to clarify the notion or implications of what sort of thread you're trying to start. I in turn, offered a "personal" viewpoint on how science works. But that post cannot guarantee that this thread would be allowed to continue though. If one of the mods/admins closes it, then so be it.

-RODION

I do not see a conflict with this forum's stated goals and this discussion. Science involves men and men can be philosophical. Many great minds inevitably run into a philosophical wall. It is one thing to raise a clearly unscientific issue and another to question science and other ways of thinking about world. Science and the philosophies are both studied in higher education.

[vern]

Pero sir can you separate human mind or way of thinking nga mo discover aning natural world or fundamental laws of nature? is it out of the equation?

If you are saying that we should be open to other ways of interpreting the laws of nature ... then no, that is out of the question and off topic to this forum.

[ketllac]

lahi akong pasabot sir. related ra gihapon sa unang question. akong point is kung nag involve man gani ug human mind sa pag interpret sa fundamental laws of nature, kay lain man sad kaayog dili hehehe, why wala ang philosphical component sa science?. wala man nako gi question ang laws of nature nga gi view as contant but ang method or pamaagi to arrive sa usa ka scientific fact. kana ba nga mga "pamaagi", pag diskubre sa pamaagi (scientific method) ug pag correct and develop sa method wala nag involve ug philophical aspects in the first place.? na define ba ang science within sa scientific method ra sad or outside sa science?

[Kenshiro]

Science relies dominantly on logic and observation but little in philosophy.
Philosophy is more on a viewpoint on the correctness of statements if used in science.
Philosophy is used more in religion mainly catholic, and used by lawyers a lot.

Science can observe, quantify, calculate, and analyze facts, Logically.
There is a danger in Philosophy that it can twist the facts by mere statements. As we stated it is a way of thinking a way of presenting the facts and it can also be a way to distort the facts.
That is why Philosophy can never be the main tools for science.
Just my opinion.

[ketllac]

Science relies dominantly on logic and observation but little in philosophy.
Philosophy is more on a viewpoint on the correctness of statements if used in science.
Philosophy is used more in religion mainly catholic, and used by lawyers a lot.

Science can observe, quantify, calculate, and analyze facts, Logically.
There is a danger in Philosophy that it can twist the facts by mere statements. As we stated it is a way of thinking a way of presenting the facts and it can also be a way to distort the facts.
That is why Philosophy can never be the main tools for science.
Just my opinion.

logic is under philosophy. without philosophy walay developments sa logic ug science ...logic is a subdivision of epistemology nga major study sa philosophy and logic is used in all areas in philosophy..Know the history of logic and science..Philosophy is not about pamilosopo FYI..hehehhehehe..

[Kenshiro]

Philosophy can be used to twist or distort the facts like the lawyers and religion although not all or it can be used to clarify the facts the way they are.

[gareb]

here we are falling into the usual trap of divergent operational definitions.

[The_Child]

the people above are confuse about philosophy of science. of course there is a philosophy of science! and there are a lot of topics under that heading. alot of valid topics.


your question is very valid, but again, if you ask a fanatic of science that question, they'd usually answer that you dont have to ask that. it's quite similar when you ask a pastor, does god exists? and the pastor answers of course because its here and here in this book in this chapter in his verse.

even the scientific method is a philosophical question. It is called the problem of induction, what allows us or permit us to make an induction since an induction is after all just contingent.
another question you might want to ask is science equivalent to truth?
another question is, is something scientific because it follows a consistent method or is it because it works?
another question, does the world exists with out me observing it? some naive guy would usually say yes! but the problem can be seen in the field of math. Where do you see numbers? is it in my mind or is it in the world? how do numbers connect with the mind and the world? if it is in my mind, why couldn't we cheat mathematics, that is, wrong formulation equates to disastrous things, buildings collapse, planes crash, things blow up. if it is in the world, why could i not experience it?
what constitutes as evidence?
where does time and space exist? In the world, or in the mind?



there are alot of issues in philosophy of science. its a field all in itself.

[The_Child]

OT: philosophy is soo misconstrued. This is exactly why our nation is so backwards. You get this even from the scientifically educated. What will you do with all those scientific knowledge if at the end, you do not know what it is for, why even do it, what is the point of it all. At the end it boils down to philosophy: know thyself. And only a few are able to appreciate that, more so, understand that seemingly simple point.

[fish]

nerd man sad kaayo atong feeling kung mo-post ta ani nga thread...

there is indeed such a thing as philosophy of science. the authors of this idea are actually philosophers.
there are two philosophers that offered differing ideas about what and how science should be... that is thomas kuhn and karl popper. TS, read anything related to these to philosophers. not only is it very helpful the ts, but also to anyone interested in science.