How could be unified the scientific knowledge?

[wuliheron]

I agree generally , excepting your consideration of science as a philosophical discipline . I believe that Science, in its method, differs of Philosophy, at least, in two aspects: Method and consensus. The scientific method, born from Philosophy, is now independent. Consensus is based in the communication of evidence using a common language, as mathematics. Philosophy have, as I see it, more personal scores.

The assertion that the scientific method is now independent of philosophy, in itself, is a philosophical idea. Certainly it is not a scientific fact. :tongue2:

 

[ryokan]

The assertion that the scientific method is now independent of philosophy, in itself, is a philosophical idea. Certainly it is not a scientific fact. :tongue2:

What is Science? :uhh:
What is Philosophy? :uhh:

 

[wuliheron]

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Again, science is an epistomological method which philosophy provides the metaphysical foundations for.

 

[ryokan]

Again, science is an epistomological method which philosophy provides the metaphysical foundations for.

I cannot be in agreement with your conclusion. For mi, your Dictionary's quotes are clear enough.

 

[wuliheron]

I cannot be in agreement with your conclusion. For mi, your Dictionary's quotes are clear enough.

They are demonstrably only clear when given a specific context. At least, that is the scientific evidence. In other words, science has proven that what is and is not scientific depends upon the context, and philosophy plays an integral role in any human context.

Is that really too difficult for you to grasp, or do you simply refuse to accept the possibility :surprise: ?

 

[ryokan]

They are demonstrably only clear when given a specific context. At least, that is the scientific evidence. In other words, science has proven that what is and is not scientific depends upon the context, and philosophy plays an integral role in any human context.

Is that really too difficult for you to grasp, or do you simply refuse to accept the possibility :surprise: ?

What context?
What's the context in the fact that Earth moves around the Sun? What's the context in the fact that a cell divides into two daughter cells?
What's the context in the fact that 2 + 2 = 4?

 

[wuliheron]

Among other things, we are the context.

To most people in the middle ages, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun had no meaning, nor was it considered scientific. To an abstract mathematician, the idea that 2+2=4 has no meaning in the context of certain types of mathematics. Your crying emotocon demonstrably only has meaning because we are all human beings and understand what frustration is all about. :0)

 

[ryokan]

Among other things, we are the context.

To most people in the middle ages, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun had no meaning, nor was it considered scientific. To an abstract mathematician, the idea that 2+2=4 has no meaning in the context of certain types of mathematics. Your crying emotocon demonstrably only has meaning because we are all human beings and understand what frustration is all about. :0)

There are historical contexts where science develops. But it is true that the Earth moves around the Sun, with independence of any context
There are different contexts due to curricula an specialization, but 2+2 = 4 with independence of curricula an specialization.
Certainly, the evolution of Science is dependent from the historical "weltanschauung" and the socioeconomic conditions (It is difficult that some countries produce Nobel prizes only because of their economic situation). So,the historical development of Science it is contextual but the Scientific trues, once obtained, are independent of the historical context.

 

[vanesch]

There are historical contexts where science develops. But it is true that the Earth moves around the Sun, with independence of any context
There are different contexts due to curricula an specialization, but 2+2 = 4 with independence of curricula an specialization.
Certainly, the evolution of Science is dependent from the historical "weltanschauung" and the socioeconomic conditions (It is difficult that some countries produce Nobel prizes only because of their economic situation). So,the historical development of Science it is contextual but the Scientific trues, once obtained, are independent of the historical context.

And these considerations are philosophical :tongue2:

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, not scientific anyway. I remain unconvinced that the methods of philosophy are competent to settle any issues at all.

 

[wuliheron]

There are historical contexts where science develops. But it is true that the Earth moves around the Sun, with independence of any context
There are different contexts due to curricula an specialization, but 2+2 = 4 with independence of curricula an specialization.
Certainly, the evolution of Science is dependent from the historical "weltanschauung" and the socioeconomic conditions (It is difficult that some countries produce Nobel prizes only because of their economic situation). So,the historical development of Science it is contextual but the Scientific trues, once obtained, are independent of the historical context.

Science does not have truths, it only has facts and theories. Truths are for philosophers and theologians.

What you are describing is not science, but metaphysics. For example, one of the arguments Einstein used against QM is that, if it is true, then the moon is not there unless someone looks at it. This he considered so absurd that it could not possibly be true in his opinion. However, his entire argument is not a scientific one, but a metaphysical philosophical one beyond the scope of science.

 

[ryokan]

Science does not have truths, it only has facts and theories. Truths are for philosophers and theologians.

I was using the term "truth" in a pragmatic sense. Strictly, I agree: Science only has facts and theories.

 

[ryokan]

Well, not scientific anyway. I remain unconvinced that the methods of philosophy are competent to settle any issues at all.

When we talk about Science, we don't make Science. So, language isn't scientific.

Is there any "scientific" epistemology? or any Science of Science?

For example, do you believe that the Thomas S. Kuhn's theories on the development of Science are scientific?

 

[wuliheron]

I was using the term "truth" in a pragmatic sense. Strictly, I agree: Science only has facts and theories.

Pragmatism is a kind of philosophy, not a science. Likewise, epistomology is a philosophical concept. Again, the scientific method is a philosophical epistomology--not the other way around. You are attempting to put the cart before the horse, evidently because you do not seem to like philosophy. Humourously enough, it seems it is your philosophy to distrust philosophy. :surprise:

 

[ryokan]

Pragmatism is a kind of philosophy, not a science. Likewise, epistomology is a philosophical concept. Again, the scientific method is a philosophical epistomology--not the other way around. You are attempting to put the cart before the horse, evidently because you do not seem to like philosophy. Humourously enough, it seems it is your philosophy to distrust philosophy. :surprise:

No, No, No.
If I agree with you essentially.
We can talk on Science only in philosophical language. It isn't a Science of Science.
I only said that Science isn't Philosophy. Only that.

 

[ryokan]

I will pose the first question in other form.
In the past centuries, there was possible for one man to know a great part of the whole of his time's knowledge. Good examples of "universalist" men could be Newton, Gauss,von Humboldt, ...
Now that isn't possible.
The career of a scientist is progressively more dependent of his specialization. That is clear in the remaining of the "publish or perish" motto.
The universal knowledge is now in the libraries.
Is it possible for one individual a basic, balanced knowledge of the world a this moment?
Scientific specialization is of clear benefit to society, but is it also for the individual scientist as a person?
Must Science to follow its actual way of progressive specialization ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Witten is the best we have. He knows a lot of detail about both cutting edge math and cutting edge physics. This is about where Gauss was in his day. But as for deeper knowledge/talent in letters or arts, I don't think so.

 

[ryokan]

Witten is the best we have.

The best ... Where?

In the World?
In your Country?
or.. In this Forum?

 

[sol2]

The best ... Where?

In the World?
In your Country?
or.. In this Forum?

Wouldn't this question, limit the "potential" anyone of us might have? It would be comparative to saying, only the "specialization," could have answered any of the most disturbing questions, yet, the potential could well recognize that this might be answered by other people?

 

[ryokan]

Wouldn't this question, limit the "potential" anyone of us might have? It would be comparative to saying, only the "specialization," could have answered any of the most disturbing questions, yet, the potential could well recognize that this might be answered by other people?

The question was about the term "best" used by SelfAdjoint in reference to Witten. Only that. I haven't as aim any comparison among people.

 

[ryokan]

Consilience

What do you think about the Wilson's concept "consilience"?