Philosophy of science

[The_Child]

---

better nerd than shallow. Popper and Kuhn are notable figures, but they are just two figures in the field. Interestingly, both figures were not educated purely in philosophy, and yet they are philosophers of science.

[ketllac]

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.

mao ni sir unta ako i open dire nga mga topic kung pwede ba kaha.. I am not claiming nga maayo ko ani but makasabot man sad..ako purpose is kung science makatabang why dili ta mo dig deeper sa principle ana nga mo link sa philosophy. dako baya ni help sa research and development sa technology.but sad to say sige lang ta sunod sunod sa uban research without digging deeper nga pwede sad ta filipino makasabot sa principle aron ma develop nato ang science pag ayo base sa atong panginahanglan..

[rodsky]

nosebleeding help atotz taasa anih bro oie..

Aws ang buot pasabot ana dong, dili ka bagay diri nga section, kay wala man ka kasabot, ug mag post-post nalang ug words like 'atots' or 'nosebleed' para lang makapost. Sa sunod dong infraction na ka ha? Maayong hapon.

-RODION

[jadestoner]

I may not be a student of philosophy but nalingaw ko og basa sa inyo mga discussions diri. Share lang kos a akong humble understanding about philosophy and science. (Kung OT kaayo ko pls to tell me aron maka-sabot ko. hehehe)

Philosophy as I remember is the Greek translation of "Love for Wisdom". Sa akong pag-skwela og Philosophy pag-college (though I didn't pay attention to it that much) I have understood that philosophy is the study of problems in their detail, usually kanang sa mga braod kaayo nga mga problems like "why do we exist?" or "how did we get to learn a language" and my favorite "how are we able to to have reason?". Science naman as what I understand is a body of knowledge that can be explained logically (sa ako to a point of view kay mathematical na gani hapit tanan.. hehehe). So ang sa ako lang kay science deals more with facts that have been proven via creating a rational theory, testing, retesting, validating, re-theorizing (if needed), testing the theory, proving the theory and then logically redoing the experiment if repeatable ba xa. As for philosophy, IMHO, kay seeks to find answers to problems via rational argument. philosophy greatly depends on man's perception sad as compared to science that there is no change in whatever perception man has.

hmmm... in a way ma.describe nako ang pag-sabot nako sa philosophy through this:
If a tree falls in the forest without anyone there to hear it, will it make a sound?
Sa philosophy: No, it will not make a sound since there is no purpose of sound if there is nobody to perceive it.
Sa science: Yes, it will create a sound since the tree creates a disturbance in the air that will cause sound. Whether or not there is or nobody there to hear the sound created, that doesn't change the fact that there is a disturbance in the air that will cause the production of sound.


I may be wrong with what I said, so please feel free to correct me. hehehe.

[The_Child]

I may not be a student of philosophy but nalingaw ko og basa sa inyo mga discussions diri. Share lang kos a akong humble understanding about philosophy and science. (Kung OT kaayo ko pls to tell me aron maka-sabot ko. hehehe)

Philosophy as I remember is the Greek translation of "Love for Wisdom". Sa akong pag-skwela og Philosophy pag-college (though I didn't pay attention to it that much) I have understood that philosophy is the study of problems in their detail, usually kanang sa mga braod kaayo nga mga problems like "why do we exist?" or "how did we get to learn a language" and my favorite "how are we able to to have reason?". Science naman as what I understand is a body of knowledge that can be explained logically (sa ako to a point of view kay mathematical na gani hapit tanan.. hehehe). So ang sa ako lang kay science deals more with facts that have been proven via creating a rational theory, testing, retesting, validating, re-theorizing (if needed), testing the theory, proving the theory and then logically redoing the experiment if repeatable ba xa. As for philosophy, IMHO, kay seeks to find answers to problems via rational argument. philosophy greatly depends on man's perception sad as compared to science that there is no change in whatever perception man has.

hmmm... in a way ma.describe nako ang pag-sabot nako sa philosophy through this:
If a tree falls in the forest without anyone there to hear it, will it make a sound?
Sa philosophy: No, it will not make a sound since there is no purpose of sound if there is nobody to perceive it.
Sa science: Yes, it will create a sound since the tree creates a disturbance in the air that will cause sound. Whether or not there is or nobody there to hear the sound created, that doesn't change the fact that there is a disturbance in the air that will cause the production of sound.


I may be wrong with what I said, so please feel free to correct me. hehehe.

(natural and social) science is, as you said, a body of knowledge, hence it has a framework. But a framework is a framework, it works within certain bounds. Philosophy, on the other hand, is more abstract than science, in the same way as mathematics is more abstract than science. philosophy is freer to discourse regarding things beyond the scope of science. Whereas science teaches a kind of truth that is founded on the scientific methodology; philosophy, being more abstract, teaches us to ask: what is truth in the first place? This might be difficult to understand and appreciate this difference. Your summary does not really capture the difference between philosophy and science, but you got some point right.

[AyNaLang]

"Science is a way of thinking ..."

in other words, our mind builds systems, so that our mind can think in a systematic way.

consider electricity and electronics (without which there would be no computers...charles babbage came too early, he only conceptualized the computer but never built it)...

the system here is based on the concept of positive and negative...a very simple concept, but from it a system has been built so complicated it has produced the greatest product of man's intellectual prowess, the computer

[boy awp2]

science itseLf is not 'perfect' . though there are countLess of discoveries scientists have aLready proven but stiLL there are aLso countLess of unknown facts which has not been discovered .. Limme put a scenario , Let the biggest number is no. of discoveries of them which are factuaL in basis .. Let from that no. of discoveries to what is reaLLy is are aLso facts that has not been proven .. moreover , even some of thus 'scientists' theories and other cLaims .. may Leads a 'phiLosopher' with a fuzzy judgement .. therefore , i wiLL use the term 'phiLosophy' is a way of thinking .. rather than 'science' ..

the term 'what is reaLLy is' doesn't mean that the Limit is infinite , which is absurd if i think and you think .. instead , it is just an idea that there is an existing number greater than the biggest number that the human brain can ever imagine ! ! ..

i Love booth science and phiLosophy .. im just differentiating there common idea between its Less vague and more specific meanings ..

this is just a mere opinion of mine , as what one of the famous phiLosopher said " whan can be thought , can be said ..

hahahaha .. estoryaheeee .. i hope it make sense





" There is existence because there is concsiousness .. ReaLity and Nothingness are both facts " . +5V