Science and philosophy There are always walked together in history:

Times of scientific sterility, have carried philosophical atrofia.

The question today is whether science leaves some space for philosophy. Or whether philosophy can respond to the real problems of the scientific world, to which philosophy: "Is perplexed, or admired" (principle of philosophical thinking, according to Aristotle).

Philosophy will today have its meaning if:

There are a number of problems that, escaping from the scientific field, reveal the need for philosophy, both for science itself, and especially for today's society.

What philosophy should NOT be for science:

A "know-it-all": Because today that is impossible, and it reduces philosophy to pure sterility.

A "deep knowledge", in the face of "superficial" scientific knowledge: this leads to the discredit of philosophy.

A servant of Science, as it was of theology: it would deprive philosophy of freedom, and make science the "only" mode of thought and knowledge of reality.

Today it is unencouraged to consider that scientific knowledge is not infallible: science is based on the "reasonable" or "the probable".

Rather than seeking "truth," science seeks "coherence," because for her pure objectivity does not exist.

Scientists who despise philosophy, do it "doing philosophy." It is necessary to make a philosophy of science.

What do the scientists think the philosophy of "science" should be (what to do)?

To provide the solid "foundation" of Science. (Brian Blanshard).

Develop a theory of knowledge. (K. Popper).

To build a scientific language (Paul Lorenzen).

To make a critique of science (J. Habermas).

The current need for a philosophy of science:

Origin: In doubting about the excellence of science

Seeing it as a "unique" knowledge.

Seeing it as having the only valid method to know the reality, and obtain effective results.

Others see it as a "myth."

Where do these positions come from?

Of the work of Th. Kuhn "The Structure of Revolutions".

It is said that in the evolution of science, it decides not only the facts, the logic and the methodology, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation. This argument provides "paradigms" or "universally recognized scientific realizations that for a certain time proportional models of problems and solutions applicable to the scientific community".

The scientific Revolutions (paradigm shift) are compared with the political revolutions: the one that accepts a paradigm depends on it being accepted by a specific community. In This field it plays not only the logic but the persuasive argumentation ("the Rally").

The consequence of all this is: "Methodological anarchism", which sees science as a fairy tale, whose success is the result of the combination of creativity and control:

Scientists have ideas.

They also have a method for perfecting them.

The ideas submitted to the scientific method give a better account of the world than those that have not passed through the test of that method.

But there is no single method (magic wand) that universally guarantees scientific truth (as there is no idea of universal rationality, in philosophy).

Therefore, all methods are "valid" (Anarchy).

The evolution of the scientific method is similar to the artistic evolution. It is a question of "taste" (and not of "truth"), and of "persuasion" rather than "demonstration".

Need for a philosophy of science: to be able to discuss in depth the issues raised by Kuhn, to make it impossible for science to dispense with philosophy.

Philosophy must reflect on its own foundations and on its validity. Today scientists are restless, and only philosophy can quench that concern.

This "new" philosophy should not be isolated and static. It must be part of the real, material and social changing world.

It should not be done from a logical-abstract and Apriorista analysis.

Yes, from an active experience of using science in relation to their social tasks. "Itcan be that, like the men who made the tower of Babel in the hope of reaching the sky, men who seek the secrets of the atom are punished for their impiety by accident receiving the means of exterminating the human race and perhaps the life of this planet" (Belton n Russell).

Philosophy must allow man to make a civilized science: capable of liberating man (not to threaten him with death); Eliminate oppression and fear (foster peace and prosperity).
Similar posts: