If there is a common territory between science and philosophy, as many writers have affirmed, (1) it must also be possible to go from science to philosophy. This is indeed what some of the greatest scientific minds throughout the centuries have attempted to do. Their reflections fall into the oldest branches of philosophical thinking: ontology or the question of what the basic constituents of nature are; epistemology or the question by which tools the human mind can acquire knowledge about the external world; ethics or the question of what moral responsibility scientists have with respect to their discoveries. In such contributions, scientists, prompted by the most recent discoveries in their respective fields, provide interpretations of science and the natural world and thereby contribute to their understanding. The heartbeat of science is at its most philosophical rhythm when major conceptual revisions or revolutions are afoot and scientists feel the need to go beyond the mathematical expressions of natural processes to reach a level of understanding which assigns some physical meaning to the mathematical comprehension of the natural world or offers a re-interpretation of the nature of the scientific enterprise.
There are many insightful people behind all these intuitive inventions and discoveries. These intuitive tasks take birth in the thought process of the individuals who are venturing to get a solution for the uncertainty in their minds. These people do a lot of background work, get solutions for the concerns and perform lots of observations, experiments to the solutions they arrived at to conclude a result. This process is often called as Scientific Method. Robert Millikan, a Noble prize winner for Physics, once said, ‘Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment.
All fields are powered by the human imagination and its capability to come up with new concepts that can further knowledge; this not only includes science, but also all of the branches of the social sciences and the humanities as well. However, science is distinguished from other disciplines because imagined ideas must be tested out in real life in some sort of physical manner. As an illustration, Bronowski points out the example of the differences between the knowledge of science and the knowledge of literature: “In science, the imaginary experiment is tested by confronting it with physical experience; and in literature, the imaginative conception is tested by confronting it with human experience” (6). Literature, a branch of the humanities, deals with the imagination by putting one’s personal thoughts into writing and in turn, those who read the composition are able to enter the world the author has created in his or her mind via a personal, emotional experience. This is the opposite of science, where imagined ideas for experimentations do not involve human emotions or other intangible notions.
Many philosophers of science and historians have certain prejudices that lead them to view alchemy as a “pseudo-science”. However, this black magic science is responsible for much of our understanding of modern day chemistry. Alchemy has definitely played a role in the growth and founding of science; it is what taught ancient chemists about what counts as an experiment and how to think about matter at its most basic level. By expanding into two different categories, one can see why alchemy should be considered an important science. The first category to consider is the equipment and techniques used by alchemists that have been passed on to the modern day scientist.
Philosophy 20/30 Tanisha Kotowich Mr. Gambier March 3, 2014 Quotes Regarding Philosophy Analysis, Interpretation and Application “To be is to be perceived. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” ~ Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) As an idealist, Berkeley believed that nothing is real except for minds and their ideas. Ideas do not exist independently of the mind, but rather it is the mind that provides validity to the concepts. Something exists only if someone has the idea of it. It is the acknowledgement made by humans that takes a mere ambiguous idea and gives it not only meaning but its very existence.
To tackle Berkeley's argument, I will take Hylas and Philonous's Tree Argument. This is a nice variation on the common riddle of "If a tree falls in the middle of a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Philonous is trying to prove that everything that exists is perceived, and therefore exists only in the mind. If this is true, then nothing exists without the mind, and it is therefore pointless to distinguish between primary and secondary qualities as Locke does. Philonous challenges Hylas to conceive of any sensible object that exists without the mind.
The aim of this essay is to provide a summary and critique of Thomas S. Kuhn’s groundbreaking thesis ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.’ This will be done by analyzing his concepts of ‘paradigm’, ‘normal science’ and ‘scientific revolutions.’ Following the overview I will present the example of ‘The Copernican Revolution’ to empirically show a paradigm shift. The rest of the essay is concerned specifically with critically examining Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm and the incommensurability between them. I will show that to define paradigm is a never ending task however this should not hinder the usefulness of the concept itself. Before Kuhn’s book was written, the commonly held position by scientists and philosophers of science, such as Mach and Otswald , about the structure of science; was that it involved linear progression as a result of an incremental accumulation of knowledge from the activities undertaken by members of the scientific community. They thought that as generations of scientists observed more and more, their understanding of a particular scientific fact would become better refined through an ever growing stockpile of facts, theories and methods.
Born not long after Bacon’s death, Newton would provide evidence for the existence of these natural laws, and support his theories with scientific experimentation, even developing a new kind of mathematics, infinitesimal calculus, in order to provide support for his theories. The breakthrough philosophical effect of Newton’s discoveries was immense. If the world operat... ... middle of paper ... ...jecting those traditions which interfered with his artistic vision, he created bold new paintings and proved himself an artist of the Enlightenment. It is clear that the Scientific Revolution had a tremendous impact on the thought and art of Europe during the Enlightenment and 18th century. All of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment recognized the scientific revolution and its luminaries as influences on their own thinking.
He describes the towers “like great trees in a forest”, which continues to stand among the ruins. The point of view is of John’s, who is not informed of the past and what has happened to the “Place of the Gods”. Since it is from John’s point of view, we do not understand the observations he makes right away because it is his thoughts and his assumptions. If we could clearly see what he saw then we would recognize the place right away. The metals they collect represent the people’s superstition, which only the priests can collect.
Thinking became gradually a researching activity with a lasting educational component and was able to develop a twofold advance: philosophy dealing with general retrospective analyses and prospective outlooks, and science focussing the attention on particular actual problems approached by specific means. In spite of obvious differences, both philosophical and scientifical thoughts are to submit their statements to he above criteria for assuming the noblest tasks of Paideia. At the turning of our century the science of the inert world, i.e. physics and chemistry, discovered phenomena that compelled the scientists to revise old deterministic patterns of explanation wich became controversial, and to look for new ones. During our century concepts like natural law, order, certainty became a matter of doubt for both theoretical and experimental scientists.