RE: [Fis] Philosophers describe science

Thank you, Michael, for this clear and loud statement. I appreciate your
position.

I assume that it is ok with you that I am of a different opinion. My
interest is primarily in the relations between science, technology and
society, and therefore I happen to be a social (non-)scientist. :-)

With kind regards,

Loet
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
> [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Michael Devereux
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:24 PM
> To: FIS Mailing List
> Subject: [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
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jul 1 00:10:56 2004