Philosophy of science

[ketllac]

---

Pwede mo post dire ug philosophy of science related nga topic?
Please explain kung dili pwede..thanks.. kung walay relevance ni please lang ko close...

[vern]

How is science a philosophy?

[rodsky]

The first chapter of Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain" presents this in an elegant way.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate the connections of things—from subnuclear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an infallible guide. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomena of the world. Even so straightforward a question as whether in the absence of friction a pound of lead falls faster than a gram of fluff was answered incorrectly by Aristotle and almost everyone else before the time of Galileo. Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage—at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.

Beyond this the main trick of science is to really think of something: the shape of clouds and their occasional sharp bottom edges at the same altitude everywhere in the sky; the formation of the dewdrop on a leaf; the origin of a name or a word—Shakespeare, say, or "philanthropic"; the reason for human social customs—the incest taboo, for example; how it is that a lens in sunlight can make paper burn; how a "walking stick" got to look so much like a twig; why the Moon seems to follow us as we walk; what prevents us from digging a hole down to the center of the Earth; what the definition is of "down" on a spherical Earth; how it is possible for the body to convert yesterday's lunch into today's muscle and sinew; or how far is up—does the universe go on forever, or if it does not, is there any meaning to the question of what lies on the other side? Some of these questions are pretty easy. Others, especially the last, are mysteries to which no one even today knows the answer. They are natural questions to ask. Every culture has posed such questions in one way or another. Almost always the proposed answers are in the nature of "Just So Stories," attempted explanations divorced from experiment, or even from careful comparative observations.

But the scientific cast of mind examines the world critically as if many alternative worlds might exist, as if other things might be here which are not. Then we are forced to ask why what we see is present and not something else. Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres? Why not pyramids, or cubes, or dodecahedra? Why not irregular, jumbly shapes? Why so symmetrical worlds? If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else we know, thinking of tests you can pose to substantiate or deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science. And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and more you will get better and better at it. To penetrate into the heart of the thing—even a little thing, a blade of grass, as Walt Whitman said—is to experience a kind of exhilaration that, it may be, only human beings of all the beings on this planet can feel. We are an intelligent species and the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.

-RODION

[ketllac]

How is science a philosophy?

science is not a philosophy. Pero wala bay philosophical elements or aspects ang science nga pwede nato ma tuki tuki dinhi sa science section?

[vern]

If science is a way of thinking, then it is philosophy ... because one can think in other ways. Sagan tends to describe things with lots of metaphors, but if you step back and describe science in scientific terms ... then it is not a philosophy. Sorry Carl, but your description of science may make people look inwards, but science exists for science's sake and is not up for personal definition. People may take different paths to do science, it is the person that was lost before discovering it. The path that lead to doing science may be philosophical ... but science just is. Whether you do it or not is your journey.

[vern]

science is not a philosophy. Pero wala bay philosophical elements or aspects ang science nga pwede nato ma tuki tuki dinhi sa science section?

No. There are no philosophical aspects to the scientific method. One may apply philosophical elements and aspects to science, but that is entirely separate from science. Sagan likes to describe science in this romantic view of science ... but that is not science. Physicists like to call things like the "God particle". God can be discussed philosophically, but this "God particle" and God are totally separate. It is humans that like to apply philosophy to scientific things. Humans create philosophy while the scientific facts of nature exist with or without us discovering them.

[ketllac]

nangutana ra ko sir kung pwede ba ni nga topic? sorry di ayo ko maayo mo ininglis basta lawom na nga topic kay after lang ko sa idea. hehehhhee..

lawom imo point sir..pero wala bay foundation ang science sir, kung naa man gani, sa science sad ba gipundar or gikuhaan ang basehan?

for me sir pwede siguro ingnon nga naay facts without discovering it, pero mahimo ra ng "scientific facts" kung naa nay nag discover ana kay ang science gi create man sad as a tool pareha sa philosophy? sakto ba ko?

[rodsky]

nangutana ra ko sir kung pwede ba ni nga topic? sorry di ayo ko maayo mo ininglis basta lawom na nga topic kay after lang ko sa idea. hehehhhee..

lawom imo point sir..pero wala bay foundation ang science sir, kung naa man gani, sa science sad ba gipundar or gikuhaan ang basehan?

for me sir pwede siguro ingnon nga naay facts without discovering it, pero mahimo ra ng "scientific facts" kung naa nay nag discover ana kay ang science gi create man sad as a tool pareha sa philosophy? sakto ba ko?

The fact nga wala gi close ni Vern ang topic immediately means that it was allowed (or given leeway) primarily to clarify the notion or implications of what sort of thread you're trying to start. I in turn, offered a "personal" viewpoint on how science works. But that post cannot guarantee that this thread would be allowed to continue though. If one of the mods/admins closes it, then so be it.

-RODION

[vern]

lawom imo point sir..pero wala bay foundation ang science sir, kung naa man gani, sa science sad ba gipundar or gikuhaan ang basehan?

The foundation of science is the world around us. One does not need to create a philosophy of a given subject to witness nature around us. One participates in science by merely observing nature.

for me sir pwede siguro ingnon nga naay facts without discovering it, pero mahimo ra ng "scientific facts" kung naa nay nag discover ana kay ang science gi create man sad as a tool pareha sa philosophy? sakto ba ko?

Scientific facts are scientific facts. They do not require philosophy because they cannot be argued, given opinion of, or overturned because one believes something else to be true. They are true whether one knows them to be true or not. Philosophy on the other hand changes as the mind of man changes. Philosophy can change as society changes. Gravity for example stays true and the same whether or not a man's political philosophy changes. Scientific facts are unwavering, unchanging. If they do change, that only means our understanding of the scientific fact has been refined and corrected to be more accurate ... the fundamental laws governing those facts did not change.

[ketllac]

Pero sir can you separate human mind or way of thinking nga mo discover aning natural world or fundamental laws of nature? is it out of the equation?