Basic Assumptions of Science: A Prioris?

[deltapapazulu]

What are the basic "unproved" assumptions of science?

 

[Evo]

This isn't philosophy, moving to GD.

This question is also too broad. You will need to state examples that you are questioning.

 

[deltapapazulu]

This isn't philosophy, moving to GD.

This question is also too broad. You will need to state examples that you are questioning.

Isn't philosophy?! And exactly what would you categorize it as? An inquiry into the 'a prioris' of science is 100% a philosophical inquiry falling under the category of epistemology. In fact, it's one of the hottest philosophical topics being addressed in academia. Do names like Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerabend mean anything to you? They weren't exactly writing hikers' field manuals.

But perhaps you were right about my needing to provide examples. If I wanted to start a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of science, I probably should have been more explicative.

 

[Evo]

Isn't philosophy?! And exactly what would you categorize it as? An inquiry into the 'a prioris' of science is 100% a philosophical inquiry falling under the category of epistemology. In fact, it's one of the hottest philosophical topics being addressed in academia. Do names like Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerabend mean anything to you? They weren't exactly writing hikers' field manuals.

But perhaps you were right about my needing to provide examples. If I wanted to start a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of science, I probably should have been more explicative.

Your one and only sentence was

What are the basic "unproved" assumptions of science?

We have standards for what qualifies as an acceptable post for philosophy and that doesn't cut it.

I suggest you read the Philosophy Forum Guidelines to understand what is required.

A good rule of thumb is to place yourself in the shoes of your readers and ask whether a prospective post is clear enough and developed enough to be understood by them-- Does this make sense? Am I making a sufficiently strong argument for my claims? How likely is it that someone will be confused by, or misinterpret, what I have written? You should strive to make your posts intelligible, well supported, and unambiguous.

In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments in the philosophy forums adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the problem, the backdrop against which it resides, and the justification of one's perspective. This might include

* explicitly defining key terms;
* justifying why this is a valid issue or problem in the first place;
* explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
* etc.

In particular, please make a concerted effort to adequately define key terms whose meaning might otherwise be ambiguous and to provide proper justification for any claims that might be contentious. Doing so will go a long way towards stimulating productive discussion, whereas failure to do so will inevitably lead to lots of confusion, wasted words, and effort, and ultimately to moderator intervention as outlined above.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294