[Fis] Philosophers describe science

Dear Loet and colleagues,

Thanks for the lucid and thoughtful message, Loet. Im sure youre right
that the word science is often used for a wide range of meanings. I
think that broad range can sometimes cause confusion rather than
enlightenment, and may even include contradictory interpretations. Ive
used the word to mean the pursuit of understanding by that method
usually called the scientific method. My meaning would distinguish the
humanities, including philosophy, art, mathematics and theology, for
example, from science, and corresponds, roughly, with the separation
described by C. P. Snow in his notable book, The Two Cultures.

I would only categorize those disciplines as truly scientific which
strictly adhere to the methodology of science. The renowned philosopher
of science, Karl Popper, I believe, has described those methods most
clearly and persuasively. His theory of falsification, refined by Quine
and others, refurbishes and explicates the tenets of the scientific
method portrayed first by Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century and
Francis Bacon in the seventeenth. (And they go well with eggs and toast.)

Popper explained that his falsification, or refutation, principle
supplanted logical induction as the criterion for a valid scientific
assertion. That assertion must, in principle, be subject to an
observation or physical experiment capable of refuting that prediction.
I believe this is the essence of truly scientific investigation, and is
the source of its efficacy, its validity and authority, and of the
progressive nature of genuine science. In my view, we ought label
something science, and accord it the credence and respect of scientific
conclusions, only to the extent that it adheres to the scientific method.

Its my understanding, Loet, that the Vienna Circle encompassed
philosophers of science, Carnap, Feigel, Philip Frank, possibly Quine,
but few, if any, natural scientists, and that they are credited with an
analytic philosophy which advocates clear, precise statements, and
logical rigor and evidence, rather than ambiguity, in argumentation. If
thats all there is to it, I count myself as such an advocate. In my
judgment, equivocation and imprecise dilation (though easy to do) is a
hindrance, and no help, toward understanding scientific arguments, or
philosophic ones.

Id like to emphasize that the laws of those scientific disciplines
which strictly depend on observational validation are exclusively
progressive, historically. There is no need to reconstruct scientific
laws established observationally, since they are just as true today
(within the range of their applicability) as when originally deduced.
Though some religious doctrines, and the dictates of powerful notables,
may have altered dramatically since Galilleos time, for example, we
continue to recognize that the earth does not center our universe.

The threat of torture to Galilleo, or just the pressure for compliance
with our peers, or the craving for personal promotion, cannot alter
scientific conclusions which are observationally founded. And which
contrast, so often and so obviously, with self-serving speculation.
Moreover, it appears that the awesome onslaught of modern technology
(for good, and bad) flows from that reality which only observation imparts.

I do recognize that many contemporary philosophers of science, including
Kuhn, point to a different explanation of the historical progression
which characterizes the observational sciences. But I can make (some
other time) a powerful and persuasive case, I believe, that it is the
universality and legitimacy of observation, and not popular acceptance
by any group, if, even a group of influential scientists, which
validates the conclusions of natural science.

I appreciate your explanation for the use of a mathematical theory of
communication to study flow of currency and other tokens of value, Loet.
I wish I knew more. I find it fascinating and valuable.

Cordially,

Michael Devereux

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:26:14 2004