Looking for BIPoC philosophers of Science?

What should be the most important criteria for appointment to the career steps in universities? What are the conditions deserve to progress on the career steps? What are the conditions of advancement in your country? Do you think these criteria are objective and correct criteria for academic advancement? Is should common criteria develop all over the world?

What determines human behavior in daily life?

The Journal of Research Practice (Elsevier) was created for that purpose back in 2005, but was discontinued in March 2019. I’m not looking for journals of research in specific areas, such as education, science, or engineering, but for journals that concentrate specifically on the acts of rigorous human inquiry and knowledge creation.

After being a philosophy student for some time, I found myself in the same situation Descartes is at the beginning of the Discourse: given such a variety of opinions in philosophy, is it really possible to affirme that there is an absolute truth that one day we will, maybe, reach?

And this not only referring to the philosophy field, but also, for instance, science. To give a trivial example, everybody believed the sun moved around the earth, until a certain guy by the name of Copernicus told them they were wrong. Could it be just a simple problem of perspective then? Is the truth that we are searching for, to use a Nietzschean interpretation, just a God in which we believe but that we will inevitably kill in the end? Or simply are we asking the question in the wrong way and, once solved this Wittgenstenian problem, we will be able to understand that the problem is not a problem at all?

There are two theories that are quite similar in nature, but different in substance, The theory of Mind and the theory of Mentaliz(S)ation, sorry, Im allergic to American spelling...pls dont kill me now :-) My understanding of them is this "Both of these concepts, mentalization and the theory of mind, describes processes that are metacognitive in their nature . Mentalization mainly concerns the reflection of affective or emotional mental states. In contrast however the, theory of mind focuses on things epistemic in nature such as beliefs, intentions and persuasions. My idea is that these two theories by them self are incomplete but combining elements of both, gives us a clearer understanding. Cognition and affect can't in my view be separated, they are both part of us as human beings and also a part of other animals. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong or right? I can stand criticism so bring it on...

Leonard Hall added a reply (20 April 2023, in my discussion: “Can any experimental or theoretical proof be for ‘the’ existence of ether?) (With Leonard Hall's written permission in RG.)

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

This question just appeared on an RG sidebar so I read through the set of replies. It's quite a trip, and of course I have my own theory, but I enjoy the discussions your questions raise.

I believe "catalyst" is the term I want here. My best tuned muffler design emerged in the aftermath of a terrible idea that was otherwise quite useless! Aristotle's introduction of the "aether" as the quintessence filling the universe beyond the sublunary sphere was quite useful to him in description. Young's double-slit experiment proved the wave nature of light, for a while, and the aether concept supported extensive learning which eventually produced more complete understanding, and many remaining questions about it. Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful? Granted, it may mislead, but that is my point with the tuned muffler incident. We are still so ignorant we must have mavericks that explore, while the majority marches on incrementing what works.

The Philosophy of Science must be opportunity that aids discovery, not rules that protect all those doing philosophy from error. Proof about aether will come in it's time. In the meantime, what should be done about the fact that there are 11,552 replies to the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?"

Factually, I do not understand "If ether is of infinite activity, it cannot interact with anything in the world, and hence also with matter, EM and Gravitation." If aether exists, activity associated with it will be local and its "infinite activity" seems to me irrelevant. Oh,well, great discussion!

Happy Trails, Len

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply (21 April 2023)

Leonard Hall, thanks. You asked: "Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful?" To my mind, this must increasingly be taken as an unacceptable attitude in science and of course in philosophy, because this is the attitude that stalls the progress of both (and also of human institutions), by creating discrete "epochs and revolutions" in their way ahead.

For me, the question as to the existence of ether, and if it does exist its manner of action and influence on the world, are important enough. Not because the answer will come soon. But there is always some more light into the eventual near-perfect but imperfect solutions when we keep reasoning about its possible existence and non-existence, influence and non-influence, extent of influence and non-influence, etc.

For some scientists, only a direct proof will count. "Mere reasoning" is useless for them. But very few have produced almost direct proofs for anything -- and if they insist on science having produced direct proofs, we will and shall attempt to show them that, theoretically, they are not even able to prove the existence of the physical world directly.

Hence, indirect reasoning too has its value -- even if science, philosophy, etc. will transpire only in terms of epochs and revolutions. I for my part have used the MMM (Maximal-Medial-Minimal) Method for this purpose.

About the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?". If you notice the going-ons therein, you will realize also the attitudes and motives behind many of the warring factions therein.

Sorry, if not the motives, then at least the attitudes that come to the fore through the words being used. I do not say this about all of them. Some of them use their words in such a manner as for others to feel that the ones who express themselves so will surely have missed parental love in childhood.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

What kind of scientific research dominate in the field of Philosophy of science and research?

Please, provide your suggestions for a question, problem or research thesis in the issues: Philosophy of science and research.

Please reply.

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes