Does science have any limits? Scientists say no. Philosophers are divided in their response. The humanities say that science is not "humanitarian," and thus not metaphysically deep. In response, scientists and some philosophers contend that science is the best knowledge we have about the world. I argue that science is limited by its form. Science has no object that derives from the human form. Everything that is incomparable to the dimension of the human body is reducible to notions that are commensurable to that body. This phenomenologically clarifies some of the most important discoveries in contemporary science. The Special Theory of Relativity shows the dependence of space and time on the accounting system. Quantum mechanics displays the limits of observation (Heisenberg) and logical indefiniteness by compelling the creation of a macropresentation of micro-objects and gets around logic (Feyerabend) through the principle of additionality. Experimental science has come out as an artificial projection of human expansion, not as a reflection of the transcendent order of the world itself. "The life world" successfully takes the place of "the objective world" of modern rationality.
Does Empirical Science have any limits? This question is not so interesting for the contemporary philosophy of Science. Not like the questions of reality, objectivity, rationality. I believe, that these questions could be elucidated by answering the question of limitness, or, of form of Science.
Does Empirical Science have any limits? The answer of the scientists is No: Science is unlimited. There are no scientifically unresolvable questions, they have sense. The answer of the philosophers is not clear, but it is close to No. It is shown not only i...
... middle of paper ...
...rld.
And now, at the issue of this study, occurs a question: Does the pre-scientific grasping of the world through logic, space and time really need the "reinforcement" which the experimental science proposes?
Notes
(1) Gherdjikov, S. Limits of Science. Sofia, Extreme Press, 1995.
(2) See Heelan, P. Space-perception and the Philosophy of Science. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 1983.
(3) See McTagart, J. The Nature of Existence. Northampton, J. Dickens & Co., 1968. Paragraphs 303-351.
(4) Hempel, K., Oppenheim, P. Studies in the Logic of Explanation. N. Y., 1970.
(5) Gerdjikov, S. A Matrix Model of Scientific Explanation.-International Congress "Logic and Methodology of Science." Proceedings. Moscow, 1987. Vol. 6, p. 367- 368.
(6) Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson of London. London, 1959.
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
Carl G. Hempel was of the most influential proponents of what is now regarded as the classic view of explanation in science. In his work, Philosophy of Natural Science, he created the deductive-nomological model which is the following account of scientific explanation, where an explanation is set out as a formalized argument. This is the principle format for works such as Aristotle’s Physica, Ptolemy’s Almagest, Newton’s Principia and Opticks, Franklin’s Electricity, Lavoisie’s Chemistry, and Lyell’s Geology. Thomas Kuhn calls these achievements Paradigms. Through these paradigms normal science developed. In Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he argues that normal science in a way hinders the development of new phenomenon. He says that there must be a change in a paradigm to create a scientific revolution. Throughout this essay I will explain what Hempel’s model consists of and how it relates to Kuhn’s view.
In order to understand the meaning of existence in relation to philosophy, we need to discuss its ordinary meaning and the various levels of existence. The Chambers Concise Dictionary (1992, 362) defines ‘exist’ as having an actual being; to live; to occur; to continue to live’ and it defines existence as ‘the state of existing or being’. In other words, the Dictionary does not make a distinction between existence and living. However, philosophically there is the view that existence is different from living. What then is the meaning of existence in philosophy? In order to answer this question we shall examine how philosophers have used the term in their various works. Our attention shall focus on Plato and Sartre.
Capgras Syndrome (CS) is named after Joseph Capgras (1873-1950), a French psychiatrist. He first described the disorder on the case of a French woman, who complained that the corresponding ‘doubles’ had taken places of her husband and other people she knew. Capgras and Reboul-Lachaux first called the syndrome “l’illusion des sosies”, which is translated as “the illusion of look-alikes” [1].
...gical argument for that of existence that parallels Wittgenstein’s investigations on the meanings of words. In my own life, I accept that my existence is largely ambiguous and that I am disclosing who I am every instant I make a choice, even if I direct that choice toward a goal. The indeterminate characteristic of ambiguity may make some uneasy when applying the word to their existence, but I find comfort in knowing that my existence can ultimately be defined as I see fit. I am glad that, through my own freedom, I am able to live and make sense of the world; I exist.
The average person spends over one-third of their life sleeping, and over this period of time he or she can have over 1,825 dreams (Wicklinski). By definition, dreams are mental images, thoughts, or emotions that are experienced while sleeping. In the beginning, dreams were thought to be messages sent from the gods or spirit world. Researchers now have many theories explaining why people dream. Many of these theories explain that dreams can resemble an individual’s sensory experiences or even secret wishes. All people dream, but only 42% of people can recall their dreams from the night before (“Dreams”). The study of dreams is a topic that is constantly being debated by researchers for many reasons. Dreaming is important because it can impact people’s health, provide insight into what they are feeling, and reveal information about their behavior.
...esults. One interesting thing found, is that although it is though that dreams happen in a blink of an eye that they actually happen in a realistic time span (General Information). Another is that dreams generally take place in familiar settings and are random leftover thoughts from the previous day. What’s interesting though, is that during studies in which participants were woken on a regular basis, scientists found that the dreams remembered the following morning were “more coherent, sexier, and generally more interesting” than the dream descriptions that were collected in data for research. Most participants remembered very little of their dreams and only about the last fifteen minutes of dreaming before awoken.
The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society is still afraid of the effects of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century, where scientists had to be secretive in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty of the results of science.
Cartwright, R.D. (1978) A primer on Sleep and Dreaming. Massachusetts : Addison - Wesley, Publishing, Company
The issue that arises in this discussion is that is there a valid difference between science and other types of knowledge or are they both interrelated in some specific terms? Does science have a sister that encompasses the same rules and regulations and follows the same methodology or does science stand alone, with all other types of knowledge as a separate entity.
The Deductive-Nomological (D-N) Model gives an account of explanation through its basic form, the Covering Law Model. The D-N Model asks the basic question “What is a scientific explanation?” The aim of this paper is to answer that question and further develop the definition of an explanation by problematizing the D-N Model’s account of explanation, providing a solution to one of those problems, and then further problematizing that solution. By examining the details of an example that the D-N Model explains well, we can see why this model was popular in the first place before describing two of its major problems. Then, by looking at Wesley Salmon’s account of scientific explanation, we can see just how problematic the flaws in the D-N Model
Moritz Schlick believed the all important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the doubt of the certainty of human knowledge. This problem originates in the wish for absolute certainty. A very important idea is the concept of "protocol statements", which are "...statements which express the facts with absolute simplicity, without any moulding, alteration, or addition, in whose elaboration every science consists, and which precede all knowing, every judgment regarding the world." (1) It makes no sense to speak of uncertain facts, only assertions and our knowledge can be uncertain. If we succeed therefore in expressing the raw facts in protocol statements without any contamination, these appear to be the absolutely indubitable starting points of all knowledge. They are again abandoned, but they constitute a firm basis "...to which all our cognitions owe whatever validity they may possess." (2) Math is stated indirectly into protocol statements which are resolved into definite protocol statements which one could formulate exactly, in principle, but with tremendous effort. Knowledge in life and science in some sense begins with confirmation of facts, and the protocol statements stand at the beginning of science. In the event that protocol statements would be distinguished by definite logical properties, structure, position in the system of science, and one would be confronted with the task of actually specifying these properties. We fin...
In conclusion, not only does conscription contradict fundamental human rights, it is also ineffectual due to the generally lesser-quality soldiers that it tends to produce. One of the ideas that the United States was built on, that individuals should have the liberty to decide how and where to work, is violated by the idea of conscription. Most times, drafted soldiers will perform less admirably than their professional counterparts; the general unwillingness to serve on top of the usual pressures of the military can physically and mentally impact them to a greater degree. Do not tolerate the idea of compulsory military service, especially in times such as this in which it is not at all necessary. Help those who support it understand why conscription is a blatant violation of human rights.
Despite the large amount of time we spend asleep, surprisingly little is actually known about sleeping and dreaming. Much has been imagined, however. Over history, sleep has been conceived as the space of the soul, as a state of absence akin to death, as a virtual or alternate reality, and more recently, as a form of (sub)consciousness in which memories are built and erased. The significance attributed to dreams has varied widely as well. The Ancient Greeks had surprise dream encounters with their gods. Native Americans turned to their dreams for guidance in life. Shamans dreamed in order to gather information from the spirits.
Lucid dreaming is a phenomenon that has plagued the world since the beginning of time. The idea of Lucidity in dreams has been shunned until the recently in the 21st century, but what is it? With the help of Gavin Lane and Matthew Gatton, we will delve into the mystery that is Lucid Dreaming: the subconscious effect on our conscious minds.