Essentialism is a doctrine that is in general disrepute amongst contemporary philosophers, so few of them would disagree with you. In fact, most philosophers of science would probably say that there is no such thing as "the scientific method", let alone "the essence of science" (whatever that might mean).Originally posted by ahrkron
Something I have always been suspicious about is questions of the form "What is the essence of X?", since they tend to induce the (usually unproven) assumption that there is an "essence" to be found or described.
A (hopefully) clear example is the word "mind". The word was coined from the observation of behaviors, and it is assumed to represent an entity.
I think philosophy should be used to dictate the future-path our scientists take... and also to validate the conclusions which are being made (by scientists) in reference to specific areas of research.Originally posted by Tom
I am interested in discussing the role of philosophy in science with you all
You beat me.Originally posted by ahrkron
Done with the introduction!
The distinction drawn by the author between the philosophy of science and the (history, psychology, sociology) of science is the same as the distinction drawn by the author of my book on logic between the prescriptive laws of reasoning (logic) and the descriptive laws of reasoning (psychology).Ultra-brief summary:
We need to distinguish between "Philosophy of X" and History, Sociology and Psychology of X. Such distinction is not an easy one, but we can start by saying that philosophy of science (PoS) is not based on empirical studies, while the other disciplines are.
PoS is concerned with the methodology of science and the interpretation of its results.
I thought, "in your reasoned opinion", all things originated only in the Mind.Originally posted by Lifegazer
In my reasoned-opinion, 1 & 2-dimensional entities can only exist as concepts of the mind.