How could be unified the scientific knowledge?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the possibility of unifying scientific knowledge across diverse fields such as Neurosciences, Ethology, and Physics. Participants consider the implications, benefits, and limitations of interdisciplinary approaches, while questioning the nature of scientific knowledge itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether a systematic unification of scientific knowledge is feasible and what the potential benefits and limitations might be.
  • One participant proposes that a unified theory could serve as a common denominator across disciplines, suggesting that understanding variables in a unified way could yield significant insights.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of holistic theories, arguing that they are more descriptive and useful than reductionist approaches, and that a single holistic theory could potentially connect all scientific disciplines.
  • Concerns are raised about the risk of holistic approaches leading to a form of reductionism that oversimplifies complex relationships, prompting a call for precise definitions of "holistic."
  • Some participants discuss the distinction between holistic and reductionist perspectives, noting that holistic theories encompass reductionist ideas while also asserting that the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • There is mention of the challenges associated with true holistic science, which may be more complex and difficult to analyze than reductionist methods.
  • Participants highlight the role of context in defining holistic and reductionist concepts, suggesting that clarity in definitions is contingent upon a holistic understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and implications of unifying scientific knowledge, with no consensus reached on the definitions of holistic and reductionist approaches or their applicability across disciplines.

Contextual Notes

Discussions reveal limitations in the definitions and assumptions surrounding holistic and reductionist theories, as well as the context-dependent nature of these concepts.

  • #31
ryokan said:
Math arose from philosophy. Math isn't Philosophy.

I agree.

ryokan said:
Science isn't Philosophy

I agree.

ryokan said:
Math aids to explain Nature, but I think that Math is created.

Now this is interesting indeed. This leads to theoretical developement?


ryokan said:
I believe that Science and Philosophy are related. From an historical viewpoint Philosophy was the origin of Science. I believe that it is essential the discussion between Philosophy and Science.

Anomalies in nature, more so then philosophy? Anomalies are natural, and math isn't. Yet we use math to construct, to explain the natural world?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ryokan said:
Philosophy was the origin of Science.
Philosophy influences the development of Science. Philosophy analyze the scientific findings.

But... Philosophy is not Science.

Science is a process, a method, a tool. Philosophy provides the metaphysical foundations according to which each science is organized and practiced. In other words, Science most certainly is not a philosophy, science is a philosophical discipline, just as logistics is a philosophical discipline.
 
  • #33
sol2 said:
Anomalies are natural, and math isn't. Yet we use math to construct, to explain the natural world?
I think that... Yes. If Math are designed to explain the world, they must explain all the aspects of Nature, even anomalies.
I believe that we agree in the basics. :smile:
 
  • #34
wuliheron said:
Science is a process, a method, a tool. Philosophy provides the metaphysical foundations according to which each science is organized and practiced. In other words, Science most certainly is not a philosophy, science is a philosophical discipline, just as logistics is a philosophical discipline.
I agree generally :smile: , excepting your consideration of science as a philosophical discipline :confused: . 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.
 
  • #35
ryokan said:
I think that... Yes. If Math are designed to explain the world, they must explain all the aspects of Nature, even anomalies.
I believe that we agree in the basics. :smile:

Check out LIminocentric structures and see what sparks recognition. Maybe enlightenment? :smile:
 
  • #36
ryokan said:
I agree generally :smile: , excepting your consideration of science as a philosophical discipline :confused: . 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. :-p
 
  • #37
wuliheron said:
The assertion that the scientific method is now independent of philosophy, in itself, is a philosophical idea. Certainly it is not a scientific fact. :-p
What is Science? :rolleyes:
What is Philosophy? :rolleyes:
 
  • #38
Dictionary.com said:
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.
 
  • #39
wuliheron said:
Again, science is an epistomological method which philosophy provides the metaphysical foundations for.

:mad: I cannot be in agreement with your conclusion. For mi, your Dictionary's quotes are clear enough.
 
  • #40
ryokan said:
:mad: 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: ?
 
Last edited:
  • #41
wuliheron said:
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: ?
:cry: 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?
 
  • #42
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)
 
  • #43
wuliheron said:
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.
 
  • #44
ryokan said:
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 :-p

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #45
Well, not scientific anyway. I remain unconvinced that the methods of philosophy are competent to settle any issues at all.
 
  • #46
ryokan said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
wuliheron said:
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.
 
  • #48
selfAdjoint said:
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?
 
  • #49
ryokan said:
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:
 
  • #50
wuliheron said:
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. :cry:
If I agree with you essentially. :smile:
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.
 
  • #51
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 ?
 
  • #52
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.
 
  • #53
selfAdjoint said:
Witten is the best we have.

The best ... Where?

In the World?
In your Country?
or.. In this Forum?
 
  • #54
ryokan said:
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?
 
  • #55
sol2 said:
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.
 
  • #56
Consilience

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

Similar threads

Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
My Take on the Limitations of Scientific Knowledge
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Might the rate of passage of time be an obstacle for scientific knowledge?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
The Limits of Scientism: Examining the Boundaries of Scientific Knowledge
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Should the public know what you are thinking and concluding?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
How does the Universe create knowledge?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
History Science and Public Policy: an Interesting History
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K