Questions related to Philosophy Of Science
There are systematic attacks on freedom to express scientific ideas and facts in India (also may be True in other 3rd world countries). There are so many crony intellectuals in tax payer funded universities or research institutions, who occupied position of influence and power not by merit but by pleasing corrupt Indian political system. They have been using their power and influence to suppress new ideas and inconvenient Truths.
I faced this kind of crony intellectuals in many research organizations such as IITs at Delhi, Mumbai or Chennai, DRDO and IIIT at Hyderabad to name a few. These crony intellectuals viciously suppress freedom to express scientific ideas and facts to cover-up their ignorance or satisfy egos.
It enraged many of them and they resort to vicious personal attacks, when I politely presented facts that expose mistakes in their knowledge or perception of reality. For example, one of such instance I reported in my earlier question, where IIIT at Hyderabad assaulted on my freedom to express facts by banning me from interacting with researchers: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_experts_react_so_viciously_and_resort_to_insults_for_requesting_an_opportunity_to_demonstrate_counter_evidence_for_flawed_beliefs
I was extremely polite and humbly requested for an opportunity for presenting evidence and facts to expose flawed beliefs at the root of existing dominant software engineering paradigm in general and CBD/CBE (Component Based Software Engineering and Design or development) of software products in particular. They banned me merely based on my polite requests without any other communication from them.
I have similar experience with former NASSCOM President Som Mittal, when he was President of NASSCOM. He bluntly told me that no one will listen to you, if you point out mistakes in their knowledge or perception and cutoff all communications. How can a fledgling or budding researcher survive such assault? Such crony intellectuals in the position of influence are the main reason that no worthwhile invention or discovery can ever come out of India?
It is shame on every Indian intellectual for allowing such crony intellectuals to stay in the position of influence or power, and do nothing when such crony intellectual have been assaulting on inalienable rights and freedom to think and find facts for exposing mistakes. I am sure this situation exists in many 3rd world countries, where corruption is rampant. So this is also meant for such 3rd world countries as well.
Is he a real scientist or researcher, if he enraged for questioning his untested belief (i.e. myth) by disagreeing or for asking him to provide evidence to substantiate his belief (i.e. myth)? Such rude attacks are wide spread in India, where the so called intellectuals are more interested in pleasing corrupt political bosses for advancing their career then the research.
What would you do, if your basic rights are assaulted? Any researcher or a scientist not only have an inalienable right but also moral obligation to state such facts/truths, even if such facts or truths anger or enrage so called intellectuals for exposing their mistakes, prejudice or ignorance. It is his/her problem, if any crony intellectual can’t handle such harsh reality or truth. Assault on such truths is an assault on the scientific knowledge and progress.
Research Proposal Computer Science (Software) Must be Considered as an Indepen...
Philosophers of science typically recognize two kinds of values in scientific practice: (1) epistemic (or theoretical, or cognitive) virtues, like accuracy, testability, empirical support, etc, and (2) ethical (or social, or regulative) norms, like justice, egalitarianism, openness, etc. Of course, the strict separation of these categories is open to disagreement.
Are there values or norms (of either kind) that are unique to mathematics? Rigour (or provability) is one possibility; computability is another. Can you think of others? Do values play the same kind of role in math as in the natural sciences?
According to the article on functionalism in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by Thomas Polger,
Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalism, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of. This can be understood by thinking about artifacts like mousetraps and keys. In particular, the original motivation for functionalism comes from the helpful comparison of minds with computers. But that is only an analogy. The main arguments for functionalism depend on showing that it is superior to its primary competitors: identity theory and behaviorism. Contrasted with behaviorism, functionalism retains the traditional idea that mental states are internal states of thinking creatures. Contrasted with identity theory, functionalism introduces the idea that mental states are multiply realized.
The opening of this article places emphasis on "the helpful comparison of minds with computers." This sort of approach or version of functionalism is often formulated as "Turing machine functionalism," and has been a major focus of the criticism of functionalism, but it is also responsible for a good deal of the contemporary interest--associated as it is with the topic of strong artificial intelligence and computational conceptions of mind and intelligence. However this is an important contrasting conception of functionalism which arose in the early 20th century and in the wake of Darwinism in psychology. This version takes the biological paradigms of intelligence and consciousness as basic and, it may be argued, avoids many of the criticisms directed at strong A.I. Both versions of functionalism tend to benefit from criticisms of "identity theories" and of behaviorism.
The article continues:
Objectors to functionalism generally charge that it classifies too many things as having mental states, or at least more states than psychologists usually accept. The effectiveness of the arguments for and against functionalism depends in part on the particular variety in question, and whether it is a stronger or weaker version of the theory. This article explains the core ideas behind functionalism and surveys the primary arguments for and against functionalism.
In one version or another, functionalism remains the most widely accepted theory of the nature of mental states among contemporary theorists. Nevertheless, in view of the difficulties of working out the details of functionalist theories, some philosophers have been inclined to offer supervenience theories of mental states as alternatives to functionalism.
Generally, this article is quite useful for discussion of the topic, and it recognizes problems connected with stronger and weaker versions of functionalism. Although Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam once claimed to have invented functionalism, it was something like "Turing machine functionalism which he proposed (and later rejected), and the psychological theory of functionalism, rooted in William James and his Principles of Psychology, long predated the contemporary versions which are more directly related to the advent of computers and computer technology.
One of the central themes in the philosophy of formal sciences (or mathematics) is the debate between realism (sometimes misnamed Platonism) and nominalism (also called "anti-realism"), which has different versions.
In my opinion, what is decisive in this regard is the position adopted on the question of whether objects postulated by the theories of the formal sciences (such as the arithmetic of natural numbers) have some mode of existence independently of the language that we humans use to refer to them; that is, independently of linguistic representations and theories. The affirmative answer assumes that things like numbers or the golden ratio are genuine discoveries, while the negative one understands that numbers are not discoveries but human inventions, they are not entities but mere referents of a language whose postulation has been useful for various purposes.
However, it does not occur to me how an anti-realist or nominalist position can respond to these two realist arguments in philosophy of mathematics: first, if numbers have no existence independently of language, how can one explain the metaphysical difference, which we call numerical, at a time before the existence of humans in which at t0 there was in a certain space-time region what we call two dinosaurs and then at t1 what we call three dinosaurs? That seems to be a real metaphysical difference in the sense in which we use the word "numerical", and it does not even require human language, which suggests that number, quantities, etc., seem to be included in the very idea of an individual entity.
Secondly, if the so-called golden ratio (also represented as the golden number and related to the Fibonacci sequence) is a human invention, how can it be explained that this relationship exists in various manifestations of nature such as the shell of certain mollusks, the florets of sunflowers, waves, the structure of galaxies, the spiral of DNA, etc.? That seems to be a discovery and not an invention, a genuine mathematical discovery. And if it is, it seems something like a universal of which those examples are particular cases, perhaps in a Platonic-like sense, which seems to suggest that mathematical entities express characteristics of the spatio-temporal world. However, this form of mathematical realism does not seem compatible with the version that maintains that the entities that mathematical theories talk about exist outside of spacetime. That is to say, if mathematical objects bear to physical and natural objects the relationship that the golden ratio bears to those mentioned, then it seems that there must be a true geometry and that, ultimately, mathematical entities are not as far out of space-time as has been suggested. After all, not everything that exists in spacetime has to be material, as the social sciences well know, that refer to norms, values or attitudes that are not. (I apologize for using a translator. Thank you.)
Impacts of individual publications are often measured via citation rates. Average citation per publication rates differ across research domains (e.g. Mathematics versus Ecology). Is there a minimum number of citations required to call a paper important or influential, and if so, how many?
Hello fellow Researchers,
I have a question regarding the understanding of the theory of theory, especially in the case of research categorizations according to empirical / theoretical. It is about a literature review, which summarizes empirical as well as theoretical papers.
Do I categorize this review as theory or empirical? Per se, no new data is collected from empirical studies, although the literature review could be considered an empirical study. Has anyone by chance ever had the same problem and found an answer? :-)
Thanks and best regards
R Feynman in his lectures, vol 1, chapter 12, Characteristics of force wrote:
"The real content of Newton’s laws is this: that the force is supposed to have some independent properties, in addition to the law F=ma; but the specific independent properties that the force has were not completely described by Newton or by anybody else, and therefore the physical law F=ma is an incomplete law. ".
Other researchers may consider the 2nd Newton's law as a definition of force or mass. But R. Feynman did not agree with them in the above chapter.
What is your view on the 2nd Newton's law?
Sometimes , we use term of "zero time" in a formulation but are we sure it is really "0" ? maybe it is 0,000......1 and is there a "zero" time(can we stop the time?), or sometimes, we say v=0 are we sure?
On the other hand
1/0 = infinity. Well then, what's "infinity"? How does it work in all the other equations?
infinity - infinity = 0?
1 + infinity = infinity?
If we use closest number to zero-monad (basic thing that constitutes the universe-everything-)Gottfreid Leibniz, in his essay “Monadology,” suggested that the fundamental unit of all things is the monad. He intended the monad to have some of the attributes of the atom, but with important differences. The monads Leibniz proposed are indivisible, indissoluble, and have no extension or shape, yet from them all things were made. He called them “the true atoms of nature.” At the same time, each monad mirrored the universe. If we use monad instead of zero, every equations work
I think Science says "Every Thing had originated from a basic thing"
From antiquity, one of the first fundamental areas of the development of thoughts and considerations being precursory trends for the subsequent development of specific fields of science was logic and philosophy. Analysis of the development of various directions, theories, concepts, trends, and philosophical schools in the context of the history of philosophical thought can also provide inspiration for contemporary considerations over specific guesses, the search for solutions to complex problems, and the planning of complex research processes.
Many philosophical concepts and trends from the past, formulated in other epochs, are in principle still valid despite the technical, technological and civilization progress made. I believe that many philosophical concepts and trends from the past concerning the role of man in the surrounding world, in relations with the environment, including the social and natural environment, man as part of nature in a sustainable ecosystem, etc. is still valid. Human life has changed due to technological and civilization progress. The current technological revolution, known as Industry 4.0, could, however, change human life in highly developed countries so far that these may be already noticeable in contemporary trends and philosophical concepts concerning antrolope, social issues, etc.
On the other hand, modern philosophical concepts can also describe the role of science in the 21st century in the context of successively growing global social, climate and natural and economic problems.
In view of the above, the current question is: Do you know any theories or directions of philosophical thought that inspire you to carry out scientific research?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
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.
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Is anybody able to Imagine "Nothing" before the big bang? Does it mean no time and no space. Well, I cannot imagine there were nothing before the big bang. I think it might be something. But what about "something"? For me, this is the main question?
Chord language is a natural information system, The basic forms are: chords (quantized discrete spectrum), chord geometry (open, closed, membrane strings), and mathematical models of chords (temperament, harmonics), often used in time (music) ), space (painting), life (meridians) and other chord semantic expressions; chord semantics comes from the chord spectrum, which is the manifestation of natural spirit and natural laws.
The impression of chord observation is: the language of chords is the language of time-space (life); the language of all things.
Preprint Chord Language
Preprint Chord Painting
Even tigers and lions kill just to survive. Lions kill other lions' cubs just because of "the egoistic gen". However, we kill - yearly (!) - hundreds and hundreds million of animals just for our food (and we most likely are successors of fruits-eating animals, as, e.g., also Pan paniscus are) and for mere entertainment (so called "hunting" - the same predators' "virtue" ) and simply disgusting pleasure (furs). We are keeping them in frightening conditions in meantime. (As if they were not living soul persons just as we all are?) And we kill them for nothing in millions just under suspection of slightest endangering for our own health:
In early November, the Danish government announced a plan to slaughter 15 million mink due to emerging fears of the COVID-19 mutation, which could be transmitted from these animals to humans. At a press conference held on November 4, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that twelve people had contracted the mutant virus and added that mink are "considered a threat to public health".
15 mln vs. 12 - isn't it a clear evidence of presumption of Homo sapiens sapiens
to be actually the most predatory (and beyond compare measure EXTRAORDINARY) of species of whole the Multiverse, therefore?
Dania. Władze wybiły norki. Teraz ich truchła wychodzą z ziemi (wprost.pl)
It seems to me that the power of the mechanistic account of explanation (Craver; Bechtel; Glennan) is to take apart individual components and see how they contribute to a given behaviour. In my opinion, the significant focus still is on the activities of individual components. The concept of the mechanistic organization should make mechanical models more holistic. However, in my opinion, the mechanistic organization merely focus on the spatial (i.e. proximity and distance) and temporal (i.e. different times of activation) co-ordination of mechanistic components. If this is the case, I do not see why the mechanistic organization should imply that mechanisms, for example, in neuroscience, are holistic. The mechanistic organization does not include a concept such as "way of working" (Bergeron, 2007) which points out the comprehensive way of cooperating of a set of components abstracting away from the activity of individual components. For instance, Burnston (2019) suggest that for studying how a set of brain regions (i.e. a brain network) underlies a specific cognitive function, we may look at the "brain frequency" (alpha: 8-13 Hz; beta, 18-25; theta: 3.5-7 Hz; delta: 0.5-3.5 Hz, and gamma: 30-70 Hz) of the whole network. That is holistic! Is it my impression or is there no an account of the mechanistic organization (in neo-mechanical philosophy) that takes into consideration "ways of working" together of every mechanistic component both intra-level and inter-level?
Please, let me know if you think I am wrong, and where may I read a substantially holistic account of the mechanistic organization.
Much of this is quoted from elsewhere, but I think deserves its own thread:
Kuhn, who I have always seen as having a only a partial (that is: just a "some-parts" understanding) of a paradigm, still seems at least in the direction of being correct in some noteworthy ways. According to Kuhn : An immature science is preparadigmatic -- that is, it is still in its natural history phase of competing schools. Slowly, a science matures and becomes paradigmatic. (End of short summary of some of his views.) [ It will be clear I do not fully agree with these views, in particular: the " 'natural' history" part. ]
I would say that preparadigmatic is not yet science at all and characterized by flailing and floundering UNTIL a paradigm is found (and RATHER: actually, this should be done NOW and with any necessary efforts: FORMULATED). Preparadigmatic is nothing good, clear or even "natural"; it is a state of insufficiency, failing to provide for making for clear sustained integrated progress (and even, as indicated, I would say this situation is: unnecessary -- see my delineation of the characteristics of a paradigm * to see why this situation in Psychology is unnecessary and INEXCUSABLE, because clearly you MUST be doing paradigm definition the best you can, clearly and respectably). _AND_ we are not talking about progress in one vein (sub-"area"), but some interpretable, agreeable findings for the whole field -- a necessary condition of HAVING ANY sort of general SCIENCE AT ALL; obviously Psychology does not have that and should not be considered a science just because people in that field want to say that and supposedly aspire in that way [ ("aspire" somehow -- usually essentially mythologically, irrationally, and just "hoping beyond hope" (as people say)) ] In short: that state of preparadigmatic should not be tolerated; major efforts should be clearly going on to improve from this state immediately ("if not sooner", as they say -- i.e. this SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER).
Since I think I DO KNOW at least many of the characteristics of a paradigm (presented elsewhere, for one: in the description of the "... Ethogram Theory" Project *) AND since mine is the only paradigm being "offered up", Psychology people should damn well take full note of that and fully read and come to a reasonable understanding of my perspective and approach -- all that leading to clear, testable hypotheses that, IF SHOWN CORRECT, would be of general applicability and importance and very reliable (in the formal sense) and , thus (as I say): agreeable. IN short, I OFFER THE ONLY FULL-FLEDGED GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY PARADIGM and if someone is in the Psychology field and really cares about science, they must take note (and fully assess it) (no reason for any exception): Minimally, all must "see" AND READ:
Barring any "competition", my paradigm should be studied and fully understood -- NO REASONABLE SCIENCE CHOICE ABOUT IT. It stands alone in Psychology, as a proposal for a NECESSARY "ingredient" for SCIENCE for Psychology.
* FOOTNOTE (this footnote is referenced-to twice in the essay above): The characteristics of a paradigm are presented the Project referred to: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (in particular, in its description)
How could any proof for disruptive discovery or theory could see the light of day (or error in our knowledge can be exposed), if no one is willing to investigate evidence that can prove the disruptive discovery or theory?
For example, how is it possible to expose flawed basic beliefs (e.g. such as the Earth is static at the center), if no one is willing to look at evidence that can expose such basic errors? If anyone try to expose such error, often many scientists or researchers resort to personal attacks or humiliating insults to suppress open honest debate.
The basic moral and ethical obligation or sacred duty of every scientist is pursuit of absolute Truth directly or indirectly, where indirectly also includes moral and ethical obligation to validation of sacred tenets for upholding Truth. Refusal to investigate conclusive evidence that can prove a new discovery of fact is tantamount to promoting an error by suppressing the Truth. Suppressing truth (by any scientist) is a volition of scientific method and moral code of conduct (for anyone consider himself a scientist).
How any new discovery of fact, basic error in mankind’s knowledge or new theory could see the light of day, if each member of community of researchers or scientists evade their mandatory moral obligation of investigating evidence and facts that can prove the theory or expose a flawed belief? Any real discovery only shines under rigorous validation or scrutiny by brilliant critics or opponents.
No researcher or scientist should ever ask anyone to blindly believe his/her discovery or theory. Every discovery or theory must be backed by falsifiable proof, evidence and reasoning. Falsifiable doesn’t imply that the discovery or theory is flawed, but it can be falsified, if it is flawed, for example, by finding a counter evidence or sound counter reasoning.
Scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute Truth (and upholding the Truth), which also includes getting closer and closer to the Truth by eliminating imperfections in our BoK (Body of Knowledge). The community of researchers and scientists are morally and ethically obligated to uphold the Truths, by investigating the evidence to determine the validity of the discovery or theory.
What would have happened, if everyone ignored or snubbed seminal theories or discoveries of a young 25-year-old low level clerk (named Einstein) at a patent office in Bern? Research community successfully suppressed disruptive discovery of Copernicus for hundred years, which eventually prevailed due to great sacrifices of researchers like Giordano Bruno and Galileo, which resulted in a scientific revolution.
Mankind would be still in the dark ages without their sacrifices to uphold the Truth. Disruptive or outside of box discoveries expose inconvenient Truths/facts, so face fierce resistance and hostilities.
Almost every disruptive or revolutionary discovery faces fierce resistance and opposition. If any scientist disagrees with a theory and proof backed by evidence, scientific process requires channeling the fierce resistance and opposition for falsifying the evidence and facts for invalidating proof. Only incompetent or ignorant people resort to personal insults. Any determined efforts to falsify proof for any discovery end up proving the discovery, if the discovery is Truth/fact. But it is unethical to suppress or snub the discovery to evade such mandatory moral obligation of investigating evidence by resorting to personal attacks or insults.
What would you do, if you stumbled onto a revolutionary discovery, and if no one in the scientific or research community is willing to investigate the evidence and facts, which can provide conclusive proof for the discovery by employing unethical evasive tactics such as personal attacks or humiliating snubs to suppressing facts?
What can you do, if research community ostracizes you (e.g. by resorting to personal attacks, humiliation and snubbing), when you politely request for an opportunity to present evidence that can provide conclusive proof for your theory or discovery?
Assume, you spent more than 12 years making sure that you are absolutely right by accumulating many proofs, where each proof is backed by more than enough evidence. If you are not very wealthy and powerful, you would be helpless (e.g. can do nothing), if research community refuses to look at your evidence that can prove your discovery.
What can you do, if you don’t have large financial resources to force the research community to investigate your evidence, for example, by dragging them to courts for abdicating their moral and ethical obligations (e.g. upholding the Truth) or for gross negligence, in case if researchers are being funded by taxpayer money and having mandatory obligation to find and promote such discoveries?
It is a laudable example that few great researchers took time to investigate disruptive discovery by a low-level young patent clerk. But in case of Galileo and others, research community blatantly abdicated their moral obligation and failed the mandate of scientific method or process for upholding the Truth. Most people claim to be a scientist doesn’t even know what is meant by being a scientist and what are the moral or ethical obligations and mandate of scientific method.
How can we advance mankind’s scientific knowledge into new unexplored frontiers, if research or scientific community abdicates their sacred duty – Pursuit of absolute Truth, flawless knowledge and wisdom? One must stop pretending to be a scientist, if he is not willing to fulfill moral or ethical obligations and mandate of scientific methods for pursuit flawless knowledge and/or upholding of the Truth.
Dear all, Mathematical models and theories are meant to provide efficient and accurate approximations of physical phenomenon. Some models have been ignored assumed to be true for hundreds or thousands years, few of them have been maintained and perfected to be close to reality (atomic models, the universe size, etc.). The human word perception and understanding is getting better every day. Also, most advances in science and technology are overlooked those of the previous cycle. However, these physical principles have been existed since the existence of the earth and the universe. The good news, Many theories and physical principles still exist and are just waiting to be discovered, our ignorance does not mean the absence of such a principle (Human limitation to exploring the earth against the vastness of the universe is a proof). Is there any mechanism or a technique which makes it possible to predict the existence of some new physical phenomenon, etc. or to initiate the reflection process ?. Thanks for your comments.
If humans are so "complex", is it always harder to understand human behavior [patterns] than to understand similarly functioning patterns in other animals? NO !!
Of course not: we see as other humans see and, to some notable extent, what they see; we hear what they can hear; we smell what they can smell; we understand the types of things they are trying to understand and master; and we understand (roughly) what they are trying to accomplish at each stage of life ('stage' both in the strict sense, of the ontogeny that is child development, and otherwise). WITH RESPECT TO NO OTHER ANIMAL DO WE HAVE THESE COMMONALITIES TO USE AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING.
Then, how is it that all this does not help us; I , for one, am not willing to believe that we are yet otherwise extremely complex to any point of not being able to come to understand humans (ourselves). [( In most cases, claims of complexity can be regarded as simply indications of confusion* (and ignorance) -- and not necessarily anything more. And, the confusions are often not necessary at all, even in the first place.)]
FOOTNOTE: Try the proposed word substitution ("confused/confusion" for "complex/complexity") and see.
Let me explain:
It is as if bad philosophy has put a "spell" (actually: blocks and limitations, over-generalizations and other wrongful mental behavior patterns, aka "thought") on us that incapacitate our moving forward, thinking along/upon more constructive lines such as (in small part) indicated above [(but much more clearly indicated, and then outlined, in other parts of my writings)]. We very much too often ask "what have the philosophers thought?" when, frankly, that hardly matters at all (they may have had some point sometimes at some junctures but, with their same body of philosophy, they commonly very much over-"define" (notably wrongly and falsely), and then overgeneralize their 'position' to make unsubstantiated CLAIMS -- yet these thought-out armchair claims are accepted!! BIG EXAMPLES OF THEIR WRONGFULNESS COME UP in statements beginning "ONLY Man can ... ". And this is in addition to THEM saying in other ways (which I am now characterizing in vague outline and obviously paraphrasing): only some 'this' or 'that' [way] will work or only some 'this' or 'that' can be the "way it is", as they "determined". They analyze any single words they choose (e.g. how we can supposedly "understand" our "will" or understand certain particular other things) as if any of these are well established concepts, when they are not; THEY then "define" other things and move on from there, both of these wrongful ways [further] making a fundamental breach with empiricism and then necessarily also with science (AND all this CAUSES CONFUSION (and it should be clear it is based on ignorance)).
Those large aspects of many, many of the philosophies are not only incongruent with science, but lead to unnecessary confusions (on larger "related" topics, like "consciousness" -- something they go on to develop ideas about, based on their initial "definitions", all that yielding the "complex" "understanding" and then also "finding" that which "cannot be understood" (e.g. the " 'hard problem' of "consciousness" " -- [a problem I see as nonexistent from another standpoint]) .
With so many permutations of so many diverse "things": the only way to provide a general alternative better view AND APPROACH will be WITH a full-fledged paradigm shift:
What is offered must have a host of better characteristics and better ways, all related clearly to a better empiricism. [ SPECIFICALLY: I am speaking of/for PSYCHOLOGY -- the number of characters allowed in a title didn't allow for the inclusion of that full phrase (though the same type of thing may at times be required by other sciences) .]
A full-fledged PARADIGM CHANGE: Better assumptions; stricter & very established/agreeable and actual empiricism, well-defined, with a definition true for ALL sciences; better KEY BEHAVIORAL foundations/clear grounding (in terms of: behavior patterns) for all cognitive processes; clear NEW observations sought (i.e. major discoveries sought) VIA NEW observation methods; & with clear better-empirical verifiable/falsifiable HYPOTHESES . This is what I seek to offer with :
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (see its major References and the Project Log (Updates) for this Project; the major References, hundreds of pages long, will provide you with a perspective and approach -- a "how-to" FOR all of that. Given its better empiricism, a concrete basis is also provided for General Artificial Intelligence -- all that is found and seen can be "mechanized", is programmable.)
[ This all is VERY serious "business"; it really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you see major problems with large portions of Psychology throughout its history, you better "go with" what I present; otherwise the long-standing situation WILL remain the same; I think you may well be able to imagine how and why that could be true (all the various myths of how things [otherwise] could/will come together NOT WITHSTANDING -- these are true myths, not based on any empiricism). ]
In physics, we have a number of "fundamental" variables: force, mass, velocity, acceleration, time, position, electric field, spin, charge, etc
How do we know that we have in fact got the most compact set of variables? If we were to examine the physics textbooks of an intelligent alien civilization, could it be they have cleverly set up their system of variables so that they don't need (say) "mass"? Maybe mass is accounted by everything else and is hence redundant? Maybe the aliens have factored mass out of their physics and it is not needed?
Bottom line question: how do we know that each of the physical variables we commonly use are fundamental and not, in fact, redundant?
Has anyone tried to formally prove we have a non-redundant compact set?
Is this even something that is possible to prove? Is it an unprovable question to start with? How do we set about trying to prove it?
For Psychology (and other aspiring sciences and for even for good established sciences): Isn't it better to speak and write in terms of "conditions-for" instead of 'causes'?
My answer: Yes. Yes. Yes. Most usually. (Most certainty for a Biological science, like Psychology; HERE I am talking about a science of behavior patterns PER SE (i.e. "just behaviors"). (What is closest to a 'cause' is what ethologists call: proximate causes.))
For some certain persons: If you do not like negative feedback, do not read below the line, directly below.
This present Question is especially for some certain individuals (who I read): The above Question is something useful to think about OTHER THAN philosophy and especially philosophical Questions about "Consciousness" and "philosophy-and-science". Those Questions are useless, senseless, ridiculous Questions that most certainly will lead nowhere (certainly nowhere useful). Consider my present Question instead, for "therapy".
Just a thought: as the number of narrow specialists grows, so does decrease the number of peers who can “double-blindly” revise one's work, turning the review process into a fallacy.
So, will there be out there that beautiful and magical moment when joint work will become a realm, at least within such narrow fields?
Who gives the last word about the evolutionary process, genetics or ecology?
In other words, are ecological interactions driven by any genetic phenomenon? Or is it genetics that has been molded by ecology?
[I’m a Brazilian biologist and writer. I write about science – I have just released a new book, O que é darwinismo (What is Darwinism, in Portuguese) – and would like to know the opinion of colleagues from other countries (from any field of scientific knowledge).]
See also What do you think about fitness, adaptation and natural selection? (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_fitness_adaptation_and_natural_selection)
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.
I am working in statistical seismology and we are running into a HIGHLY controversial topic. What can we say about the largest possible event (earthquake) that could happen in an area based on data? We make estimates, but what reliability do these estimates carry? There are epistemic and random uncertainties involved. There are many theoretical estimators for this quantity but many scientist doubt that they are of any practical value. I do not believe we seismologists are qualified to do more than "rambling" about the problem and I think some input from philosophers would be extremely enlightening.
I refer to papers:
Pisarenko VF (1991). Statistical evaluation of maximum possible magnitude. Izvestiya Earth Phys 27:757–763
Zöller, G. & Holschneider, M. (2016). The Maximum Possible and the Maximum Expected
Earthquake Magnitude for Production-Induced Earthquakes at the Gas Field in Groningen, The
Netherlands. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, 2917-2921.
Zöller, G. (2017) Comment on “Estimation of Earthquake Hazard Parameters from Incomplete Data
Files. Part III. Incorporation of Uncertainty of Earthquake‐ Occurrence Model” by Andrzej
Kijko, Ansie Smit, and Markvard A. Sellevoll. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 107: 1975-1978.
Can anyone answer this question that has been perplexed me for years? What kind of scientific discipline blatantly violates basic principles or proven rules of scientific method? What kind of scientist fiercely defends such blatant violation of basic principles or proven rules of scientific method?
Last time a scientific discipline that blatantly violated scientific method was before 17th century, when researchers fiercely defended geocentric paradox in violation of scientific method. In their defense, most of the basic rules and principles of scientific method were not yet known or properly established. Most of the basic rules and principles of scientific method were formed and which have been perfected since 17th century by many great philosophers of science and brilliant scientists, particularly based on valuable lessons and insights learned from the painful experiences gained from subverting geocentric paradox, which transformed the basic science from fake science into a real science.
What is a scientific discipline? A discipline can be a scientific discipline, if and only if the BoK (Body of Knowledge) in all the published textbooks and accepted research publications for the discipline must have been acquired and accumulated without violating basic principles and rules of scientific method. The purpose of modern scientific method is perfecting the quality of knowledge by finding and eliminating imperfections and/or anomalies. Scientific method doesn’t offer a recipe, hints, and guidelines or impose restrictions for doing research to acquire new knowledge, but provide tools to keep scientific research in the right path by detecting mistakes that can divert research efforts into a wrong path.
Each piece of knowledge in the BoK must be supported by falsifiable proof (backed by evidence and facts), where each piece of knowledge and its proof is open for challenge and perfected by rigorous testing and empirical validation. The research community in 17th blatantly violated basic scientific rule, when they tried to suppress and tacitly sabotage efforts to expose 2300-year-old unproven flawed presumption (i.e. the Earth is at the center) in it’s vary foundation.
Except computer science, I could not find any evidence that any other scientific discipline violated scientific method so blatantly. It is beyond my comprehension, why researchers of computer science fiercely defending such blatant violation of basic principles or proven rules of scientific method.
Unfortunately, software researchers acquired so much invalid BoK by blatantly violating scientific method. Since it is impossible to solve any problem by relying on invalid knowledge, software researchers concluded that it is impossible to solve certain problems (e.g. real-CBD/CBE or real computer intelligence). But it is not hard to solve those problems by acquired relevant valid knowledge. Please refer to ValidKnowledge.pdf for more information.
P.S: I also failed to find a real scientist, who can understand code of conduct for real scientists: CodeOfConduct.pdf
Philosophy of the sciences
The hypothesis I make here is that if you understand the philosophical background of your scientific field of study, it will help you in doing better research, in the problems you solve, the questions you ask at the problem solving, in the way you approach problem solving, the tools you use and the way you communicate your results. Maybe it also help to determine how you behave in life, also here on the platform.
The philosophy of science looks in a rational way at aspects such as existence (ontology, metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), methods (logic and language), values (ethics) and the beauty and creation of their truth (aesthetics).
In general, science is divided in three branches: formal, natural and social- and they again are divided into sub-branches with everyone their own way of thinking, their philosophical approach. Therefore, you have e.g. the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of physics, of art, technology, history, mathematics, business administration, engineering and so on.
People in the same field of study can differ of opinion about the philosophy of their science. Understanding the philosophical approach of other scientists and researchers here on the platform can help improve the communication.
Dear colleagues, maybe you can help answering this question: What is the philosophy or your scientific field about and how do you practice that philosophy doing your science?
Here I want to collect the philosophies of the different scientific fields, e.g economy, public administration, art, biology, history, technology and so.
Let me say a bit more. A starting perspective MUST be core-observation _AND core-principle founded, and grounded on that which is minimally clearly related to directly observable overt phenomena. These are absolute requirements for empiricism, for science. And remember: _your Subject, NOT YOU, should in-true-effect define every word and concept and the structure and nature of every set of concepts (much of all this following new observation and NEW DISCOVERIES). A strict, abiding, perspective of this quality is REQUIRED FOR ANY AND ALL SCIENCES.
If you do not start like this and stay like this, your sets-of-hypotheses/theory AND your approach will be contaminated (specifically: false w/r to reality) in some ways, and more and more, and lead you away from finding things as the really are.
[ P.S. NO need to try to "define" terms (providing generalities) or to define "realities" (boundaries). THIS IS NOT THE "JOB" OF A SCIENTIST _AND_ IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to any notable extent through thinking alone. And yet, with this (doing as I indicated), there can be some real and good science related to anything ... ]
There is no reasonable and sound counterargument or major perspective. I actually view this Discussion (so far, as I have presented it) as quite beyond discussion. I see it as a foundational Law of Science. (Yet, there are those who seek science, or seek to progress their 'science', who violate this LAW every day.)
It is obvious that English is currently the working language for scientists worldwide, and that those who publish must do it mostly in English, even if they don´t speak it at all. It is also clear that not everybody masters this language to express their ideas and argumentations with the same clarity than with their mother tongue. So, ... how much do you think that English is affecting the quality and clarity of your best ideas?
As you know, since many years back, we have an international scientific community that publishes most of their findings and ideas in English although most countries worldwide do not have/use that language as "mother tongue". In this, we commonly see an implicit international convention dictating that we currently use English as our international working language. Many of us have published on this matter and whether this “convention” is valid or not and what the outcomes are. Within this context, professionals from countries with other language than English, often wonder if our publications are reaching the right public within our countries. The different sectors of the society that may need to know about (and use) our findings, often ignore why we publish in English when they do not understand that language. So, I would like to know from you:
How much (aprox. %) of what you produce and publish in English is known by, or reaching, your own country fellows? and, Do you think that, within the different sectors of the society, those accessing your publications in English are the best recipients possible?
1) There is some tradition in philosophy of mathematics starting at the late 19th century and culminating in the crisis of foundations at the beginning of the 20th century. Names here are Zermelo, Frege, Whitehead and Russel, Cantor, Brouwer, Hilbert, Gödel, Cavaillès, and some more. At that time mathematics was already focused on itself, separated from general rationalist philosophy and epistemology, from a philosophy of the cosmos and the spirit.
2) Stepping backwards in time we have the great “rationalist” philosophers of the 17th, 18th, 19th century: Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, Spinoza, Hegel proposing a global view of the universe in which the subject, trying to understand his situation, is immersed.
3) Still making a big step backwards in time, we have the philosophers of the late antiquity and the beginning of our era (Greek philosophy, Neoplatonist schools, oriental philosophies). These should not be left out from our considerations.
4) Returning to the late 20th century we see inside mathematics appears the foundation (Eilenberg, Lavwere, Grothendieck, Maclane,…) of Category theory, which is in some sense a transversal theory inside mathematics. Among its basic principles are the notions of object, arrow, functor, on which then are founded adjunctions, (co-)limits, monads, and more evolved concepts.
Do you think these principles have their signification a) for science b) the rationalist philosophies we described before, and ultimately c) for more general philosophies of the cosmos?
Examples: The existence of an adjunction of two functors could have a meaning in physics e.g.. The existence of a natural numbers - object known from topos theory could have philosophical consequences. (cf. Immanuel Kant, Antinomien der reinen Vernunft).
The role of science in building the modern-day society is so enormous without any hitherto of doubt that the blind can feel and the deaf can see. Application of scientific knowledge is pivoted in formulating the social structures of any kind through the local and industrial production to all levels of education (Markova, 2017). The values attached to science by society is a reflection of inevitable scientific knowledge application in satisfying the basic needs of human beings and improving quality of life and well-being. Despite the utility of science through application of its knowledge in the society the big questions remain: What constitutes scientific knowledge? What are the unique features of scientific knowledge that make it different from other types of knowledge? In the next few paragraphs, I will attempt to address these questions.
Questions on the nature of scientific knowledge is philosophical and it is imperative to treat it as such. Therefore, the type of knowledge science is can be explained from the epistemological perspective which primarily concerns with the theory of knowledge in general. Despite the much effort that have been expended towards identification of constituents of scientific knowledge among educational philosophers there seems to be no universal agreement. However, some components such as statements, concepts, hypotheses, theories, methodology, etc., stand out in scientific practices. In an attempt to explain these components of scientific knowledge and their interrelationships, an overview of two epistemologies will be provided. These are the epistemology developed by Popper (2002) and that of Bunge (1998a, 1998b).
In the conceptualization of scientific knowledge, Popper sees statements as cardinal constituents and tools to describing concepts (basic or universal) coupled with associated relationships. In his view, a statement could be singular – describing experimental observation, or universal – all-inclusive based on experience. It is by default necessary for concepts to feature in scientific statements. Accordingly, a singular statement encompasses the description of an occurrence – real phenomenon – which in turn could form a building block for an event-similar occurrence which differ only in space or time. A special kind of statement is a hypothesis while a law is a unique type of universal statement. Another major component of scientific knowledge is a theory – a collection of scientific statements. Finally, a special kind of theory is a methodology (Hars, 2001; Popper, 2002). These components sum together constitute Popper’s epistemology of scientific knowledge.
Another perspective of the kind of knowledge science really is can be understood from Bunge’s epistemology of scientific knowledge. According to Bunge (1998a, 1998b), ideas and facts are basic building blocks of a scientific knowledge of an object. Scientific ideas can be broken into factual hypotheses or observational hypotheses. A factual hypothesis requires creativity as it is not often extracted from data. Another component of scientific knowledge as described by Bunger are problems which could be solved using formula that encompasses concepts and variables. Data generated by scientific experience (e.g., measurement, observation and experiment) could be linked to hypotheses towards forming theories. Hence, theories are collection of hypotheses which can be deeper than one and other.
From the foregoing paragraphs it is evident that a scientific knowledge could be conceived of as a systematically synthesis of ideas about an object, occurrence, phenomenon or event through hypotheses that are subjected to testing using measurement, observation, experiment and refined accordingly for a rational explanation (theory) of the phenomenon. These features-ideas, hypothesizing, experimentation, methodology, theorizing, etc., coupled with its empirical integration make scientific knowledge different from other types of knowledge.
It will be a good idea if your thoughts can be captured in the comment section. Thank you.
Bunge, M. A. (1998a). Philosophy of science, volume 1: From problem to theory. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing.
Bunge, M. A. (1998b). Philosophy of science, volume 2: From explanation to justification. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing.
Hars, A. (2001). Designing scientific knowledge infrastructures: The contribution of epistemology. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(1), 63–73.
Markova, L. A. (2017). The Turn in Social Investigations of Scientific Knowledge. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 55(1), 26-36. doi:10.1080/10611967.2017.1296290
Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
Faith or Belief should be based on Evidence in order to reach the TRUTH. Science leads to Truth. If the purpose of Religion is to take the believer to the Truth , then it should be based on Evidence
Ibrahim B Syed
Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. (IRFI), LOUIS VILLE, KY, USA
As an IR/Comparative Politics scholar I've always tried to follow the dictum "let the research question determine the methodology, method, etc." I remain a disciplinary and methodological pluralist. And now I find myself writing what amounts to a defense against a resurgent scientism from some quarters, which I feel are targeting inherently vulnerable research programs (such as made clear in the Grievance Studies hoax). At the moment, I'm wrestling with concepts from the philosophy of science that I struggle to get a good bead on. Take for instance one critic who dismisses the work of an increasingly well known sociologist advancing a theory out of critical race studies as pseudoscience because she does not adhere to Popper's 1963 monist demand for the hypothetico-deductive method as the only demarcation between science and non-science and specifically that she does not employ quantitative methods. Yet in one essay by this critic, an argument against the removal of Gen. Robert E. Lee's statue from New Orleans, the author 1) notes that he firmly rejects presentism - though qualifies that to say of course we should still be able to morally criticize slavery, and 2) argues that to fully understand the meaning of the statue's removal (meaning for whom, the author does not specify) we must contextualize the historical figure Lee, for as the critic notes, Lee was inescapably a man only to be understood in the context of the time he could not escape. Failure to contextualize Lee, leads us to miss what a good and honorable man he was, and thus why the statue's removal should be reconsidered. So my puzzle is this: Is this an epistemological inconsistency? Isn't, for all it's obvious problems, presentism - the view that, inter alia, only present things exist -- something of a positivist epistemology that a hard core positivist must embrace if he or she is to be remain epistemologically consistent? Additionally, isn't' demanding at the same time that we adopt an epistemic contextualism in order to see the error in removing a statue celebrating the man who led the army of the confederacy in defense of slavery rather contradictory for one who dismisses as pseudoscience sociological work that emphasizes the cultural context that gives rise to, for example, internalized racism among the dominant racial group? Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing? Or do I just not adequately appreciate the complexity of these concepts?
Our language is the origin and the building mean of formal languages of math and physics. Artificial intelligence mashines creates even their own language.
Are there research to create new languages to create new science or to simplify and make more understandable the current science? Or is it just my fantasy? Maybe if a man can see, say in ifrared range then he could invent new words? Maybe we should go in this direction?
How will one create new language describing our world and qualitatively different from the today one? Maybe we should study other creatures likes delphines?
I am sure no scientist such as Copernicus, Kepler or Galileo bribed anyone to validate their discoveries that exposed 2300-year-old flawed belief (e.g. the Earth is static at centre) at the root and very foundation of then dominant paradigm (i.e. in 16th century) later referred to as geocentric paradigm or paradox.
But today research community expect me to bribe them or someone influential to get endorsement for my new discovery that exposes 50 to 60-year-old flawed beliefs (e.g. about components and CBD/CBE) at the root and very foundation of existing dominant paradigm for software engineering. Please refer to attached PDF for my discoveries that expose the flawed beliefs.
I never heard that any researcher ever paid bribe for investigation proof for getting endorsement for his discovery or theory, even in case of very complex and disruptive discoveries or theories by researchers such as a junior patent clerk (I.e. Einstein), Newton, Plank, Maxwell or Darwin.
Such discoveries or theories require investing many months of time and money for investigating evidence, facts and reasoning. Research community gladly investigated the evidence, facts and reasoning, without expecting any bribe or favours. It is the sacred duty of any researcher or scientist to investigate such new discoveries or theories. The scientific method requires publishing each new discovery or theory openly backed by evidence, facts and reasoning.
The scientific method requires other researchers and scientists to investigate the proof backed by evidence, facts and reasoning. They can reject such discovery or theory only by finding a flaw in the proof, evidence, facts or reasoning. Only an incompetent scientist or researcher rejects a new discovery based on his pre-connived notions or prejudice without looking at the evidence and facts.
Any researcher is only obligated to provide proof backed by evidence, observable facts and reasoning publicly. It is the moral and ethical obligation of the research community (having expertise in relevant domains) to validate the proof. It is humiliating to beg researchers to investigate the proof and being snubbed. Unfortunately, since no one in computer science is willing to fulfil their moral duty to investigate proof for a new discovery, I feel that I left with no other option but bribing scientists and researchers of software to investigate the proof for my discovery.
Isn’t is demeaning, if not unethical, to pay (or expect) money to get (or give) endorsement for a new discovery. The scientific process or method requires openly publish proof for such discovery backed by evidence, observable facts and reasoning. It is the duty of the members of research community to investigate the proof.
I feel, it is my moral duty and obligation to investigate such proofs for any new discovery (of another researcher), if the domain of the discovery and its proof are within the reach or realm of my expertise.
Often disruptive discoveries in any domain would be outside of the existing knowledge base of the domain but would be within the reach of experts in the domains but requires putting more effort to stretch to expand the boundaries to reach the new discovery. But discoveries in physics, chemistry or biological sciences are not in my realm of my expertise.
For example, I am qualified to validate proofs in software engineering domain, which includes even a disruptive discovery that is outside the boundaries and/or contradictory to existing BoK (Body of Knowledge). I will not abdicate my duty to investigate proof for new discoveries for expanding our boundaries of BoK (or to uphold the Truth) and is it wrong to expect other researchers to do the same (i.e. not abdicate their duty for the cause of expanding BoK or upholding the Truth)?
I have encountered many researchers in the field of computer science and software engineering, each of them considers himself to be a scientist. But all most all of them fail basic test that can show weather a researcher is a real scientist, so fooling himself to be a scientist.
As per one of the greatest philosophers Dr. Karl Popper, a scientist must no longer hold on to a theory or belief, when conclusive counter evidence is presented to falsify a theory or belief.
I confronted many researchers by showing conclusive evidence that prove that their beliefs about the so-called software components and CBE/CBD (Component Based Design or Engineering) or fundamentally flawed.
The beliefs about so called software components and theories about CBD/CBE for software are in clear contradiction to facts and reality we know about the physical components and CBD/CBE for physical product respectively.
Instead of investigating evidence and facts presented to expose flawed beliefs and theories, each of the so-called scientists or researchers tried to viciously suppress the Truth and counter evidences or reasoning by resorting to personal attacks, snubbing or humiliations. A real scientist is morally and ethically obligated to engage in productive debate to uphold the Truth.
For example, in the context of CBD/CBE of countless physical products (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, bikes, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office equipment such as printers, machines or machinery for factory): What is the striking difference between kind of parts that are certainly components and all the other kinds of parts that are certainly not components?
Isn’t this an obvious or self-explanatory fact: In this context, no part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled? Today, no known kind of so-called components for software is designed or conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
What is CBD/CBE? The CBD/CBE in brief has three parts (i) Partitioning a large or complex product in to smaller parts, where each part implements a small sub-set of self-contained features and functionality of the product, (ii) design and build each of the parts individually as a component, which can be assembled and disassembled, and (iii) building the product by assembling all the components, once all of the components are built and tested individually. Isn’t this a reality?
It is not hard to achieve this reality for complex software products. We have conclusive proof and evidence that this reality can be easily achieved, but software researchers refusing to look at the evidence or facts. They have been doing everything in their power to hold on to their flawed beliefs and myths by resorting to vicious personal attacks or snubbing to suppress counter evidences.
Who is a scientist (in another perspective)? Scientist is a person doing research in the pursuit of Truths for understanding the objective really and obligated to uphold the Truths in one or more related scientific disciplines (in which he claims to be a scientist).
What is a scientific discipline? Each scientific discipline is a BoK (Body of Knowledge) acquired and accumulated by using proven scientific method, process and principles. It is a mandatory duty and obligation for a scientist to follow or use proven scientific method, process and principles for doing the research and to uphold the Truth.
The scientific method was created in the 17th century by great philosophers such as Galileo, Descartes, Bacon and Newton to name a few. The scientific method has been perfected during past 300 years by countless contributions of great philosophers of science including Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Arthur Schopenhauer, Russell or Feyerabend to name a few.
I am sure that the scientific method will be continuously improved and perfected by great philosophers in the future as well. No one can be a scientist, if he blatantly violates the basic principles or processes of scientific method. No person can be a scientist, if he doesn’t know the basic principles or processes of scientific method and/or blatantly violate the scientific method.
Computer science and software engineering defined nature and/or characteristics of components and CBD/CBE by blatantly violating the basic principles or processes of scientific method. Those basic assumptions made 50 to 60 years ago without any basis in rarity or fact, which are at the foundation of existing dominant software engineering paradigm and are fundamentally flawed.
Isn’t wrong to claim to be a scientist, if he blatantly violates scientific method? Today many software researchers claiming to be scientists but refusing to know or follow scientific method for understanding the reality and facts about components and CBD/CBE.
It is the duty of a scientist is to acquire and accumulating valid BoK (e.g. facts and theories backed by evidence and sound reasoning) by using the scientific method for comprehending the objective reality, for example, about components and CBD/CBE of physical or real products. Today software researchers denying basic scientific principles to maintain a paradox.
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox. - Galileo
P.S: Kindly forgive me if anybody is offended by the above inconvenient facts. Such facts must be said and knowing the facts is in his/her best interest, if any researcher doesn’t want to waste his/her lifetime of hard work and efforts in the pursuit of fool’s errand for expanding a flawed paradox in a scientific discipline, which is similar to the flawed geocentric paradox existed until 16th century.
The very purpose of research in any scientific discipline is acquiring and accumulating knowledge for expanding the BoK to comprehend objective reality by using the scientific method. How can anyone be a scientist, if he doesn’t know and/or blatantly violates the basic principles and processes of scientific method?
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.
My question is that the research
The Einstein-Bergson debate took place in Paris on April 6, 1922. I have come across various reconstructions, which however do not seem fully satisfactory. Can anybody kindly point me towards:
a) Sources and scholarly attempts at a precise reconstruction of the debate itself and the discussed topics (even in absence of verbatim transcription);
b) Wider interpretations concerning the different underlying views expressed and intentions that emerged during the debate and afterwards.
Context: I am furthering an investigation concerning the relation between philosophy and science, and more specifically, about various understandings of life from different epistemological and theoretical perspectives. Although not directly related to matters of life, I suspect the Einstein-Bergson debate could offer an interesting bit of reflection.
Thank you in advance for your help!
Many concepts in research and science are poorly understood, wrongly applied or simply misinterpreted. Paul Feyerabend's book title "Against Method", for example, is provocative, but highly misleading. Adam Smith is mostly known for the "invisible hand", which can be used for justifying any kind of laissez faire capitalism, but this does not do justice to his book "Wealth of Nations". Furthermore, I claim that Popper's falsification principle is frequently misunderstood in the social sciences. What about Cronbach's Alpha as an indicator for measuring reliability? Any further examples and/or opinions?
Of course, Coulomb’s law describes the phenomenon, but that does not explain it, as far as I know. This may be a somewhat philosophical question.
During my earlier work as a nuclear waste regulator in the intense force-field put in place by nuclear pro- and opponents, it has been necessary to look deeper into the philosophy of science aspects of our work invoking principles such as Popper's falsifiability criterion and many others. It was made within a national and an international framework, the latter primarily within the UN (International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA) and the OECD (through its Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD/NEA).
This turned out to be necessary not only because of external pressure but also because of the MO which included the time aspect, a safety assessment stretching over hundred thousands of years and the matters at hand, including the challenge of having records available over millennia in the interest of future generation’s safety. (It sounds strange to outsiders but it has been on the table for several decades).
In a draft essay I have looked into aspects of physicalism related to waste management and expanded the scope to include a number of other test issues: Einstein’s Nobel Prize, the safety of high level radioactve waste disposal, psychology and psychoanalysis and finally, for good measure, the issue of divinity. In the last example Teutonic logic is difficult to apply and the principles become shaky, underlining my second presented axiom (of three) about uncertainty, on physicalism. I then take refuge to an added goal in the essay, that of storytelling.
The essay is held in an (hopefully) entertaining tone.
I find that a strict (as possible) adherence to physicalism (the way I allow myself to define it) gives a deeper understanding of a large number of things and I wonder if you agree.
The possibility to present my ideas on this site was suggested to me my contact Professor Karlis Podnieks from Lattvia, which is gratefully acknowledged.
This is how AE rejected our paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327382103_Endangering_yourself_to_save_another_A_real_life_ethical_dilemma .
- “Thank you for the opportunity to consider "Endangering yourself to save another: A real life ethical dilemma" for XXX. An Associate Editor and I have read the manuscript. We believe that the topic is interesting, but we were not convinced that the findings you report are a good fit for XXX and instead seem better suited for a specialty journal. While we appreciated your argument that many would not predict the size of the effects you observed, we also agreed that the observed results seem to fall in line with common sense predictions; thus, the strength of the theoretical advance is limited.“
During my first year of psychology studies, actually it was the first course called Introduction to psychology, we learned about loud critics of psychology as being nothing else than somewhat extended "common sense science.” It is so disappointing to hear a colleague psychologist using the same argument.
I accept this journal emphasizes general theoretical significance and that our paper does not offer it. But naïve question: does the strength of the theoretical advance depend on how far results of a given study fall outside common sense predictions?
Kindly allow me to extract few interesting quotes from this page “Science is at its end, all the important things have already been discovered!”. The following paragraph is extracted from http://amasci.com/weird/end.html
"Sometimes I really regret that I did not live in those times when there was still so much that was new; to be sure enough much is yet unknown, but I do not think that it will be possible to discover anything easily nowadays that would lead us to revise our entire outlook as radically as was possible in the days when telescopes and microscopes were still new." - Heinrich Hertz as a physics student
I heard many researchers making such despairing statements (in fact I used to feel the same way 20 years ago). It is always much simpler to discover many things when any new paradigm for a scientific discipline was in its fledgling nascent stage. There would be many low hanging fruits for easy picking, when any field in its nascent stage. Even less intelligent people have chance of finding things or could start picking low hanging fruits, while brilliant renowned experts wasting time being skeptical or fighting to suppress the new reality/paradigm.
Instead of trying to find easy pickings in such newly discovered fledgling nascent Heliocentric model of their discipline, most of the brilliant fools fiercely defend the flawed Geocentric paradox of their discipline (e.g. by resorting to vicious personal attacks on the proponents of new model).
Kindly refer to wiki for normal science at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science, which says:
“Normal science, identified and elaborated on by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is the regular work of scientists theorizing, observing, and experimenting within a settled paradigm or explanatory framework, Regarding science as puzzle-solving, Kuhn explained normal science as slowly accumulating detail in accord with established broad theory, without questioning or challenging the underlying assumptions of that theory.”
In short: Normal science solves puzzles that are posed by the prevailing paradigm but does not challenge the paradigm's basic beliefs (that are at the root and used as foundation for building the paradigm). For example, 2300 years old belief “the Earth is static at center” was at the root and foundation for 16th century dominant geocentric paradox.
The wiki on “Normal Science” further states:
“Kuhn stressed that historically the route to normal science could be a difficult one. Prior to the formation of a shared paradigm or research consensus, would-be scientists were reduced to the accumulation of random facts and unverified observations, in the manner recorded by Pliny the Elder or Francis Bacon, while simultaneously beginning the foundations of their field from scratch through a plethora of competing theories.”
The physics went through that stage between 400BC (i.e. time of Plato and Aristotle) and 16th century, when the basic tenet at the root “the Earth is static at the center”. A complex geocentric paradigm had been evolved for 1800 years until 16th century. We now know that no meaningful progress was possible in the geocentric paradox, except exposing the error “the Earth is at the center”.
When heliocentric model was proposed most of the brilliant fools choose to fiercely defend the flawed Geocentric paradox, rather than finding easy pickings on nascent Heliocentric model. Many brilliant people (e.g. Heinrich Hertz) and ordinary people like me must have longed for such simpler times.
Even ordinary people like me had a chance to make meaningful contribution in such simpler times. But today, people like me can’t even understand theory relativity. It is beyond mental capability of brilliant people to even comprehend theories such as String theory. Only handful of people in the world has the intellectual capability to comprehend such complex theories.
I learned hard way that: A monkey has better chance of understanding trigonometry, than the chance ordinary old engineers like me has to understand String theory. No wonder many people like me long for simpler times, where there is a chance (even if it is very small chance) to make useful contribution.
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries." - from a 192 4 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
Many experts such as Dr. Fred Brooks and other Turing Award winning researchers stated that Software engineering and computer science reached this stage in mid 1980s. That is, Software engineering as a whole stood there fairly secured, and software components approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries.
Dr. Fred Brooks wrote seminal book “Mythical Man Month” in 1975 and influential Papers such as "No Silver Bullet – Essence and Accident in Software Engineering" in 1986.
Those books and papers were published more than 30 and 40 years ago. They withstood the test of time (i.e. no significant progress is made as theorized by Dr. Brooks) and in the process acquired many strong supporters. I was one of them. It is hard to attract treasure hunters to such well trodden and thoroughly explored discipline.
Chance of making any useful contribution is nearly Zero. How can anyone discover anything, when there is nothing there to discover in the geocentric paradox of software.
Only brilliant people have mental capability to master mature paradigms such as Theory of Relativity. No one can make any contribution without mastering such mature paradigm. It requires many decades of hard work even to brilliant people to master such mature paradigm.
Isn’t it despairing to people like me having average intellect? What chance a person having ordinary intellect has to discover something new, when tens of thousands of researchers before him already explored found everything that can be found in a dominant paradigm?
But lucky me! Existing dominant paradigms for Computer Science and software engineering has been evolving for past 50 to 60 years by relying on flawed assumptions (as the 16th century geocentric paradox evolved for 1800 years by relying on flawed assumptions).
Exposing the flawed assumptions open vast uncharted and hidden realms for exploration. This gives an opportunity to build new superior paradigm rooted in well tested facts from scratch. Such virgin territories offer many easy pickings, even for people having ordinary intellect.
But the problem is that: Instead of trying to find easy pickings, even brilliant fools choosing to fiercely defend the flawed Geocentric paradox of software engineering. Many of them not able to recognize the simpler times they have been longing for, even such simpler times hits in their face.
The huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for existing dominant software engineering paradigm has been acquired and accumulated for over 50 years. This huge BoK is result of passionate hard work of Tens of thousands of researchers at any time during past 50 years.
Even today tens of thousands of researchers around the world are working hard, hoping to find something that earlier generations might have missed on the well-trodden path. Few dozen researchers must already be exploring anything you would choose to explore.
It is a tall order that a small thing hidden from combing sight of countless brilliant people explored before still to be found in a nook and corner of a dominant paradigm. Isn’t it despairing for a young researcher, who must spend many decades to master already existing huge BoK before he can have any chance of finding some thing hidden or new? Is there any wonder many young aspiring researchers yearn for simpler times?
In a mature dominant paradigm, everything has 4-digit accuracy. His efforts might increase it to 5-digit accuracy, if at all brilliant people before him overlooked an insignificant nook or corner.
Look at the bright side: We get to build a brand-new paradigm (a huge tree of BoK having many branches and sub branches) from clean slate by finding each of the new facts and rigorously test for validating each of the facts before relying each on the facts for acquiring to accumulate each piece of knowledge for the BoK starting from scratch.
Join me in growing the tree of BoK from budding seed for evolving a new paradigm. This kind of opportunity comes once in a century and no more than once in the history of each scientific discipline.
My request to each software researcher is, don’t be a brilliant fool. Existing dominant paradigm of CBD/CBE is rooted in lies. Nothing of significance is left to be found.
A new paradigm opens vast new uncharted territory. A new paradigm must be built from clean slate. Whatever you find might become a bud-seed for a new branch of knowledge in the tree of the BoK for the new paradigm.
I say a big "Yes" (big time, big time). And there is VERY LITTLE TO NOTHING to counter MOST of this phenomenon at all [(but, then again, you do have me)]. (For example (with some humor): Perhaps we "kan't" live without Kant because that sort of outlook is all we are given (several other philosophers' names could substitute in this statement, but then we loose the pun).)
The institutions are truly institutions in some of the very worst ways/senses. Always, and it really seems like this will be the way it is FOREVER ; e.g. look at Psychology and the history (and philosophy) OF Psychology -- a loser as any sort of science; we have not even clearly seen behavior patterns as biological functioning, which, of course they must be and ARE (<-- doing this is probably one of the very first steps in Psychology becoming anything like a real science (which I BELIEVE IT COULD !); and note: I HAVE done this for my perspective/approach -- I see the/a way for Psychology as a natural science).
Now, if the problem is so clear (at least as I see it): ask yourselves: why is there no concern for a solution?
Einstein defines a theory (i. e. a “complete system of theoretical physics”) as a system that “consists of concepts and basic laws to interrelate those concepts and of consequences to be derived by logical deduction.” (Einstein, On the Method of Theoretical Physics)
Given this definition, can we assume that a successful theory is structure preserving (i. e. homomorphic) to, say, the causal structure of the world?
If the answer is yes, then we can infer that that there must be a homomorphism between the structure of the brain and the structure of the world. Consider a claim from Neuroscience: C. R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King define a representation of a system in analogy to the mathematical concept of a homomorphism. More precisely, they put force the proposal that there exists a homomorphism between the representing system, i. e. the brain and the represented system, the world (Gallistel and King, pp. 59-63).
If a theory is a representing system and if Gallistel and King are correct, then there must by a homomorphism between the structure of the brain and the actual structure of the world, insofar as the theory is successful.
It seems to be the case that this conclusion depends crucially on the assumption that successful theories are structure preserving. Are there arguments for or against this assumption?
- Albert Einstein, On the Method of Theoretical Physics, Philosophy of Science, 1934
- C. R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King, Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science Will Transform Neuroscience, Blackwell, 2010.
It seems to me that working memory (involving the episodic buffer AND some -- to all the types -- of the Memories) is constantly at work and is our very experience itself.
Thus, I cannot see how the Memories (with at least some of them always active, determining and "recording" experience -- which most prominently and significantly active, dependent on circumstances) can be considered something separate from our knowledge OR our knowing OR our awareness OR our conscious being (all those: inclusively), i.e. as ANYTHING ever considerable as separate from experience itself.
Correct? Seems to me such a dualism would be a most-major problem. (This may be the biggest and perhaps primary dualism of them all, in reality (phenomenologically), though the nature/nurture dualism may seem worse -- but the latter may be somehow related to the former and even may have to be somehow related.)
Yet, we do seem to talk about "them" (the Memories, usually called "memory") at times as just one aspect of who we are (we seeing ourselves somehow as more than that "one 'aspect'")(and "memory" as sometimes something to consider, and other times not), don't we? (BUT: Wouldn't this be delusion "incarnate"?)
In short, we never "just are" (nor are we in any other way): these mechanisms having capacities and capabilities are ALWAYS at "work" since we ARE biological beings, in every way (like other animals) and at all times.
The Memories are central to good psychology understanding (or progress) and to good science in this "realm". The other major consideration (to have any generally good understanding of our reality/animal reality) is innate-guidance of behavioral development (especially throughout ontogeny); and, the question becomes : how does the innate-guidance aspects of behavior emerge along with (or, actually: "in") our other behavior patterns?; the fact of the always-present Memories can be an indication of the "acceptable" integral nature of emerging innate-guidance and why "perceptual shifts" become by far the likely candidates for what they (innately-guided behavioral aspects), along with other relevant behavior patterns, look like and ARE (<- including the "automatic" nature of our reality due to the past developments of the Memories and those "bringing forward" the very nature of what a good part of our reality looks like and IS).
Isn't it pure psychoticism to have the most fundamental unit of analysis of a presumed foundational behavior pattern of AN organism INCLUDE MORE THAN ONE ORGANISM'S BEHAVIOR necessarily (or really AT ALL (ever), FOR THAT MATTER)? Yes, yes, yes. YET see the following recent papers INSIST ON such an explanation NECESSARILY (as necessary -- i.e. no other "reasonable" way):
Enactive Mechanistic Explanation of Social Cognition
Mechanistic explanation for enactive sociality
They claim 25 years of such just-pure-speculative (and by-now obviously useless) "conceptualizations".
This embarrassing nonsense is what can happen when you do not know or do not examine or analyze your true base/foundational assumptions YET THOSE ARE very poor, baseless, and UNPROVEN AND MOST-LIKELY _NOT_ TRUE (because of inconsistencies with BIOLOGY, as I have clearly indicated in my essays). [ It is desperation for progress with a basic view and approach THAT CANNOT MAKE PROGRESS rationally -- it is desperation in science/"science" . ]
Article of my authorship from which the evanescent intention and complicated relevance in the frequent occurrence among the Natural Sciences of what we would call "their plans and projects for scientific action", which claim a questionable validity, that definitely they lead them to a forced foot, in the manner of an irresolvable aporia, often describing themselves as "disciplines neutral to social practice" and alien to "a historical time", to which they nevertheless unquestionably belong, and which in addition they give a sense, since the predominance in the thought of a "scientific truth" supported in our time, precisely by History.
How can you take or recommend a view or approach that will NEVER have any direct evidence?
Embodiment has NO direct evidence for it (OR any direct evidence even clearly related to it) **, and never will: it is worse than bad science: it is not even science: see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303890892_The_poverty_of_embodied_cognition
Article The poverty of embodied cognition (full text at: link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1 Add the https:// yourself, so RG does not hijack the link AND DIRECT YOU TO JUST THE ABSTRACT)
See also my Comments below the Project "declaration" (seen in the very top of this post).
** FOOTNOTE: This is to such an extent, that "embodiment 'theory'" or "enactivism" will technically NEVER be able to present an acceptable [scientific] hypothesis. Good approaches do a LOT of clear hypothesizing.
Article of my authorship from which the evanescent intention and complicated relevance in the frequent occurrence among the Natural Sciences of what we would call "their plans and projects for scientific action", which claim a questionable validity, that definitely they lead them to a forced foot, in the manner of an irresolvable aporia, often describing themselves as "disciplines neutral to social practice" and alien to "a historical time", to which they nevertheless unquestionably belong, and which in addition they give a sense, since the predominance in the thought of a "scientific truth" supported in our time, precisely by History.
Metaphysics and science try to explain what there is in the world. How are they related? Traditionally metaphysics is “a priory” whereas science is “a posteriori” i.e. metaphysics is non-empiric while science is empiric. Two modern views about the nature of metaphysics are:
i) Metaphysics is prior to science and to empiric knowledge (E.J. Lowe (1998)), i.e. metaphysics do not tells what there is but what is possible. It is science job to discover which one among all possibilities is the actual one. Science without the help of metaphysics cannot tell what is possible unless science become metaphysics.
ii) Metaphysics and science go together in search of knowledge. This position (Putnam (1992)) states that metaphysics is possible but only when understood as “a posteriori” activity, i.e. the division between science and metaphysics is not that one is empiric and the other “a priori”. Metaphysics goes side by side with science. While science deals with specific situations, metaphysics deals with general matters, e.g. While a scientist talk about “nature laws”, a metaphysicist will study what are the characteristics that make a statement to qualify as a law. In this way metaphysics is -like everything else- “a posteriori”, but with a peculiar abstract character.
-This question is analogous to another question: whether chaos is, in the final analysis, describable by fractals (which are completely) linear! Or, fuzzy logic, which is completely definite and exact or precise (which amounts to both linearity and limitedness)...
-This question is one of the long range of questions I am (and was) asking and searching after. Please expect more (foundational) questions of 'philosophy of science'.
-In advance, my heartfelt thanks for your answers, Marc
A "googwik scientist" is a special case of an amateur of science who, as a source, uses almost exclusively Google and Wikipedia.<br /><br />
Since choosing a reference from Google, a user is hers/his own judge, and since Wikipedia is unreliable, a product of a consensus of "all" and not only of the experts, such research promotes multiplication of "referenced" mistakes.
Is “Googwik scientist” an immoral person?
Sometimes even the references support nonsense. Scientists also use Google and Wikipedia, but since they already know well the background of the studied problem, they read more critically the variety of sources available on Internet and can in fact profit from them. People who are not experts, on the contrary, are bound to accept unscientific or unfounded information as scientific and be victims of the illusion that they are using reliable sources, and falsely believe to have acquired knowledge.<br /><br />
Is "googwik science" good as a means to increase general knowledge of all and contribute to the advancement of science in general, since it offers, as knowledge, both - correct information, that may be falsely interpreted, or even false information?
In short my question is:
When trying to increase our knowledge (and also when discussing with other people about some particular subject) does an approach of avoiding to consult the primary sources (original works) and relaying only on the secondary sources (various review articles offered on Google or on Wikipedia sites) carry a risk of misinformation and false illusions of ‘knowledge’ - and leading to what I call “GoogWik Science”?
Does science profit from "googwik science" or does "googwik science" in fact damages science by introducing science for all - which in reality permits false interpretation and thereby neither helps to increase knowledge nor to promote science?
Finally: Is “Googwik scientist” an immoral person?
-Set-theoretically spoken: is philosophy of religion an element of philosophy of science? Or in Aristotelian terminology: is philosophy of religion a 'differentia specifica' of the 'genus' called philosophy of science?
-I am searching after this. Maybe you can help me. Thanks, Marc
I am interesting in opinion about the role of philosophy of science for scientists representing all areas of science, from different countries.