uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 5:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:46 pm...it is disengenuous to use this thought to suggest that philosphy and science are no different in all or even most aspects.
Here's the opening paragraph of another article I wrote*:
With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist.
Your thinking is somewhat one dimensional.
Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?
Philosophers of science are not paid to do something specific. That's not really how it works. Not in the same way scientists are paid to do a specific job. Philosophers bang on about things they like, they teach it at collage, write books. There is little in the way of tangible results. They are like the journalists of science; just a bit more critical.
Science progresses by tanglible results.
And then there's another 4000 words that make a case that while all of those propositions are features of science, the one that distinguishes science is the usefulness; basically, science has to work at some practical level. A logically coherent explanation is useful, in the sense that it is often easier and quicker to explore than a mathematical model, but it is a philosophical model. It is not essential to science, and actually makes no difference whether it is right or wrong.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:46 pmPhilosophy can entertain competing even contradictory paradigms, whilst science can only do so temporarily.
We've lived with special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics for roughly a century.
Science demands a resolution. one of the them shall win, in the same way Alchemy, astrology, geocentricism, humeral theory, all had to give way to chemistry, astronomy and germ theory.
Relativity and QM are at the periphery, as I said.
Cosmology is currently in the dark. Whilst it has established great knoweldge and evidence, it's foray into origins has led it down a dark path. The Bog Bange damands stuff they they cannot see; hence dark matter and energy. Again: peripheral science.
But core science does not admit to error, or contradiction. You cannot go to the moon with Pholgistan, crystal spheres, geocentricity, or in a plenum.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:46 pmPardigms only exist at the peripheries. Despite changes in paradigm, core science is unchanged. Knowledge happens and results are replicated; none of this may be said of non-natural philosophy.
If by "core science" you mean something like observation, measurement and prediction based on mathematical models, then yes. But the logical models can be anything.
No - that is just method. Even Ptolemy used obseration, measurement and prediction. It just took a long time to get the right theory to explain what it all meant. That meant changing paradigms thoroughly. Aristotle's perfect circles had to go; superlunary science had to go, and many other pardigmatic assumptions.
The point being that Ptolemy's system was still much better than Copurnicus's and Aristarchus. It was not until Kepler that it all made sense. People actually lost their liberty, even their lives to change the paradigm.
Core science: Germs exist. So do viruses. Colds are not caused by weather, or too much blood bile or phlegm.