|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Luis Manuel Ledo-RegalLuis Manuel Ledo-Regal Date: May 24, 2008 15:39
www.scientific-philosophy.org - Scientific philosophy international
association - 2008
1) What is scientific philosophy?
Scientific philosophy believes that philosophy is one more science and
that it must apply the hypothetical-deductive method like any other
science.
Its object of study is the reality as a whole: it is all that is
relevant to build our vision of the world and our place in it, but it
do not want to look at concrete details, which are the object of study
of other sciences. For example, it wants to know that nature works
with causes and consequences, but it do no want to study concrete
natural causes and consequences.
2) But is not philosophy very different from other sciences?
The hypothetical-deductive method has the following four steps:
1) Problem observation.
2) Elaboration of a provisional hypothesis.
3) Deduction of the logical consequences of the hypothesis.
4) Verification of the consequences with new observations.
|
| Show full article (7.55Kb) |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: May 24, 2008 16:40
On May 24, 3:39 pm, Luis Manuel Ledo-Regal
gmail.com> wrote:> www.scientific-philosophy.org- Scientific philosophy international
> association - 2008
>
> 1) What is scientific philosophy?
>
> Scientific philosophy believes that philosophy is one more science and
> that it must apply the hypothetical-deductive method like any other
> science.
>
> Its object of study is the reality as a whole: it is all that is
> relevant to build our vision of the world and our place in it, but it
> do not want to look at concrete details, which are the object of study
> of other sciences. For example, it wants to know that nature works
> with causes and consequences, but it do no want to study concrete
> natural causes and consequences.
>
> 2) But is not philosophy very different from other sciences?
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.42Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TronTron Date: May 25, 2008 08:41
Hi,
Sorry, I think this is a dead end, really.
- Philosophy, or Science General, must, by definition, encompass all kinds
of questions and admit the formulation of all kinds of answers to be tried,
including phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, whatever.
- Hence, philosophy is as much defined by its subject matter as its
methodology.
- "Scientific philosophy" is a bit of a misnomer, since "science" is merely
the latin version of "philosophy". So you are marketing "scientific science"
or "philosophical philosophy" (take your pick) - or even "philosophical
science".
- Regardless of the above, you are of course at liberty to define a more or
less narrow, particular philosophical endeavour or program. This must be
judged on its merits. Preferably one should evaluate results, but seeing as
though this may perhaps be a little early, I think it is permissible to look
at the program itself.
|
| Show full article (7.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Luis Manuel Ledo-RegalLuis Manuel Ledo-Regal Date: May 26, 2008 03:03
The main argument for scientific philosophy is, perhaps, this: the
problem of knowledge is that there is a mind who wants to access to
the world and, if there is a right method for that, it should be good
for all kind of problems. If philosophy wants to talk about the world,
it should use this method. If the right method for all sciences is the
empirical method, how could someone says that it is no the right one
for philosophy?
Regards,
Luis Manuel Ledo-Regal
Luis.Manuel.Ledo.Regal@ gmail.com
============================
Join the philosophy scientific viewpoint
-Talk group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scientific...
|
| Show full article (2.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: May 26, 2008 06:04
On Mon, 26 May 2008 03:03:08 -0700, Luis Manuel Ledo-Regal wrote:
> The main argument for scientific philosophy is, perhaps, this: the
> problem of knowledge is that there is a mind who wants to access to the
> world and, if there is a right method for that, it should be good for
> all kind of problems. If philosophy wants to talk about the world, it
> should use this method. If the right method for all sciences is the
> empirical method, how could someone says that it is no the right one for
> philosophy?
The physical sciences are now making the same demands upon it's own
parent that the parent made upon it's children since infancy? Cheeky
brats!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TronTron Date: May 26, 2008 06:54
> The main argument for scientific philosophy is, perhaps, this: the
> problem of knowledge is that there is a mind who wants to access to
> the world and,
Well, philosophy treats of numerous problems that are not "reality based".
One such subject would be ethics, where the link to empirical realtiy
is at least under contention, as in Hume's Guillotine.
Another such subject is logic.
Other subjects, which are about the world, like determinism, fatalism,
causality and other ontological questions simply have no methodology for
arriving at operative knowledge _within_ any stance one might chose, which
differs from the results of remaining outside this particular stance (i.e.
within another).
There are iow. few pragmatic differences; and whether this speaks for or
against occupying oneself with problems of this kind is also a philosophical
question.
|
| Show full article (3.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Luis Manuel Ledo-RegalLuis Manuel Ledo-Regal Date: May 26, 2008 14:46
Hello Tron,
1.- There are two kinds of sentences: synthetic and analytic.
Synthetic sentences talk about reality and we should use scientific
method to access them. Analytic sentences talk only about our
conventions...
|
| Show full article (6.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
