| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| rem4:philosophy_of_science_ii [2013/01/18 11:50] – old revision restored (2008/10/22 15:27) stefan | rem4:philosophy_of_science_ii [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| | Karl Popper | "Induction" as a process for producing **scientific** theories, does not exist in the form proposed. | | | Karl Popper | "Induction" as a process for producing **scientific** theories, does not exist in the form proposed. | |
| | Popperian extremism | While we can say that Popper was an extremist when it comes to his discussion of theories, we can agree with him that the role of science is to come up with theories that are falsifiable. | | | Popperian extremism | While we can say that Popper was an extremist when it comes to his discussion of theories, we can agree with him that the role of science is to come up with theories that are falsifiable. | |
| | Popper's favorite examples of pseudotheories | Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx | | | Popper's favorite examples of pseudotheories | Sigmund Freud's and Karl Marx's | |
| | Karl Marx's economic theory | The rich will be richer and the poor poorer - the path of the West? | | | Karl Marx's economic theory | The rich will be richer and the poor poorer ( - the path of the West?) | |
| | Popper's idealism | We cannot simply take the last 100 or 200 years of natural science as the ideal of science and assume that anything that doesn't look like it is psudo-science. That would be ignoring at least 2000 years of what Popper would call psudo-science: Philosophical beginnings of all scientific fields. | | | Popper's idealism | We cannot simply take the last 100 or 200 years of natural science as the ideal of science and assume that anything that doesn't look like it is psudo-science. That would be ignoring at least 2000 years of what Popper would call psudo-science: Philosophical beginnings of all scientific fields. | |
| | Scientific methods (and fields) evolve from early philosophical considerations | All sciences have begun as speculations. Math was developed to help with managing complexities in the natural sciences; we need other, more powerful tools for some of the remaining problems. | | | Scientific methods (and fields) evolve from early philosophical considerations | All sciences have begun as speculations. Math was developed to help with managing complexities in the natural sciences; we need other, more powerful tools for some of the remaining problems. | |
| | Darwin's theory of evolution | According to a large proportion of modern scientists in all fields, Darwin is the greatest scientist of the last milennium. Because his theory is not falsifiable it would rank high on Popper's list of bad scientific theories. | | | Darwin's theory of evolution | According to a large proportion of modern scientists in all fields, Darwin is the greatest scientist of the last milennium. Because his theory is not falsifiable it would rank high on Popper's list of **bad** scientific theories. | |
| | Freud | An important thing to keep in mind is not to let egos and personal admiration get in the way of critical thought. Perhaps it may be justified that Freudian methods are still being used in clinical treatment of mental patients, but perhaps not: We should let the numbers, as produced by comparative experiments and comparative studies, tell us whether these methods are worth holding on to. (If such comparative studies are too expensive to do properly, perhaps we should value mental sanity more!) | | | Freud | An important thing to keep in mind is not to let egos and personal admiration get in the way of critical thought. Perhaps it may be justified that Freudian methods are still being used in clinical treatment of mental patients, but perhaps not: We should let the numbers, as produced by comparative experiments and comparative studies, tell us whether these methods are worth holding on to. (If such comparative studies are too expensive to do properly, perhaps we should value mental sanity more!) | |
| | Freud and Marx: twilight zone | These teachings sit somewhere between philosophy and a mature science. (Freud was one of the first major names to put forth the idea that the mind has parts.) As with all philosophy and science one must look at what they said when they said it and put aside idealism and personal admiration. | | | Freud and Marx: twilight zone | These teachings sit somewhere between philosophy and a mature science. (Freud was one of the first major names to put forth the idea that the mind has parts.) As with all philosophy and science one must look at what they said when they said it and put aside idealism and personal admiration. | |
| ===The Importance of Creative Thought in the Progress of Science=== | ===The Importance of Creative Thought in the Progress of Science=== |
| |
| | Creativity in Science | No good theory exists without the creative activity of a human! \\ Creativity is one of the main driving forces of science. | | | Creativity in Science | No good theory exists without the creative activity of a human! \\ Creativity is one of the main driving forces of science, because without new ideas, little or no progress could be made. | |
| | The role of induction | In an effort to make the creative process more "objective" or "rule-like", philosophers and scientist have often argued that the main ingredient is "induction", \\ which follows logically from a number of observations. \\ This view ignores the creative component of scientific work and may be responsible for \\ why science education is in many cases taught in a boring fashion. | | | The role of induction | In an effort to make the creative process more "objective" or "rule-like", philosophers and scientist have often argued that the main ingredient is "logical induction", \\ generalization that flows "logically" from a number of //observations//. \\ This view ignores the creative component of scientific work and may be responsible for \\ why science education is in many cases taught in a boring fashion. | |
| | Pure "Popperism" | Pure Popperism suppresses the "storytelling" part of scientific enterprise \\ By shifting empahsis onto the falsification as the most important part of science the creative element is suppressed | | | Pure "Popperism" | Pure Popperism suppresses the "storytelling" part of scientific enterprise \\ By shifting empahsis onto the falsification as the most important part of science the creative element is suppressed | |
| | The result? | We end up with a much lower number of creative people* in science than otherwise. It is possible that this slows down the progress of science. | | | The result? | We end up with a much lower number of creative people* in science than otherwise. It is possible that this slows down the progress of science. | |
