Become a Scientist: Reason and Philosophy for Biology

[peron]

I know reason is thought in a philosophy course, and scientists are very good at reasoning, so does that mean all scientists took a course philosophy to learn how to think critically and reasonably?
If not, then how does a student of biology learn how to think outside of his field of study?

And on a unrelated note, if I want to become paleontologists what courses do I have to take to become one?

thanks

 

[Klockan3]

Reason is implicitly taught in science through all the examples of different studies and how conclusions were drawn from them.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The reason normally taught in philosophy is different from that taught in science. Scientific logic is inductive. It seeks to make a generalized point from many data sources. Philosophy seeks to make a focused point from few (if any) data sources, through the use of deduction. In a sense, philosophical reasoning is more akin to mathematical reasoning than to scientific reasoning.

And on a unrelated note, if I want to become paleontologists what courses do I have to take to become one?

Anthropology, geology, probably a bit of chemistry.. things like that. Check out some degrees at your chosen university.

 

[Ryker]

The reason normally taught in philosophy is different from that taught in science. Scientific logic is inductive. It seeks to make a generalized point from many data sources. Philosophy seeks to make a focused point from few (if any) data sources, through the use of deduction. In a sense, philosophical reasoning is more akin to mathematical reasoning than to scientific reasoning.

I don't think this is really true. You can't make such a clear distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning in sciences, and I also think there's as much deductive reasoning than there is inductive in them. Sure, when you are trying to push the frontiers of knowledge, you're probably going to be doing more induction than deduction, but in order to form hypotheses that allow for such a push won't come from induction alone. I guess it also depends on what you define as falling under the term "science", but there's lots more deduction than induction in, say, engineering new devices.

On the other hand, you have a lot of inductive reasoning in philosophy, as well. It's been a while since I've taken a formal course in philosophy, but just thinking about, say, Aristotle's Politics or other great works of the Greeks, it's pretty obvious their conclusions of how a state should be were based on induction and not deduction.

I agree that philosophy and (physical, natural) sciences aren't intertwined, because they use logic, but that's just because every single field of study employs logic. No matter what major you choose, you're going to either learn about logic or are going to have to use it without being taught the formalities of it. The extent differs, for sure, but I don't think induction vs. deduction can ever be put as a dividing line between different subjects.

 

[Leveret]

English is taught in an English course. Most people in the USA and the UK speak English. Does that mean everyone in those regions took an English class? Not at all!

There are some things one just picks up (or should pick up, at any rate) without needing to be explicitly taught it. Scientific reasoning is one of them: most (if not all) science courses will force you to think logically and critically, while neither teaching nor explicitly testing you on those skills.

As far as paleontology goes, you might look into archaeology, environmental studies, or biology, depending on the branch of paleontology you're interested in. But don't take my word for it, I'm just some random guy on the internet, and who knows what falsehoods I might be deliberately or inadvertently spreading. :P You'd be better off talking to your academic adviser, or failing that, someone in one of the departments I named above.