4 Answers

  1. Modern world science does not have a single generally binding philosophical foundation, although in some individual fields of science and scientific schools there may be sympathies with certain metaphysical or epistemological assumptions.�

    The philosophical premises of various scientific models can vary in a huge range-from various forms of materialism to religious and philosophical attitudes. Even if we are talking about the natural sciences, the range is still wide, and it becomes even wider when it comes to mathematics or the humanities.�

    A vivid example of this is the book “Big, Small and the Human Mind”, where, among other authors, R. Penrose and S. Hawking polemicize on the nature of consciousness, at the same time touching on metaphysical assumptions. The difference in the philosophical positions of these two brilliant scientists, even their complete opposite, is visible to the naked eye – and they, by the way, are co-authors of a number of scientific publications. One thing does not interfere with the other: a mathematician and a physicist may have completely different philosophical positions, but this will not prevent them from conducting scientific research together and coming to common conclusions, if we do not forget about the limits of the applicability of the scientific method and engage in science.�

    This is precisely the beauty of the scientific method – it can bring together people with completely different views of the world to work together and get common results. Unless, of course, they substitute a certain scientific cult and ideology for science.

    Leaving out the most fundamental philosophical questions – in particular, metaphysical ones-has been the hallmark of scientific rationality since at least the time of Kant (1724-1804), who demonstrated their fundamental unsolvability within the framework of the scientific method.

    To be fair, some authors try to challenge this insolubility and claim to link scientific discourse to a certain set of philosophical theses, but it turns out somehow not very well; in any case,such attempts have not become mainstream. A recent example of such attempts can be considered, for example, the experiment on constructing Soviet Marxism as “the only truly scientific philosophy”.

  2. The question is formulated on the basis of a certain doctrine-it comes from the prevailing paradigm “philosophy gave birth to science”. In the old days, such an interpretation was practically irrelevant, but in our time it threatens society with destruction. It is based on a false interpretation of science, which reduces it to professional research and experiments that originated about four centuries ago. Even today, science is usually called the activity of professional researchers, whose share in society is scanty. In this case, the people do not deal with science. Such a concept of science does not recognize as science its masterpiece-Euclidean geometry and many other things that have arisen earlier. It ignores the ideas of ancient Greek science, calling all its representatives philosophers. In fact, the so-called natural philosophers were not really philosophers, but researchers. They didn't call themselves philosophers. Philosophers Plato and Aristotle argued in various ways that science is relevant, including recognizing philosophy as a science. With this understanding of science, the ancient Egyptians were not representatives of science, although they clearly stated that wisdom is created by knowledge, science.

    There is no doubt about the relevance of the activities of scientific researchers not only in modern times, i.e. in recent centuries, but also earlier. But we cannot reduce the meaning of the word “science” only to the designation of their activities. There are many thoughts about the inadmissibility of such an interpretation of science, but it nevertheless prevails due to certain factors. There are also thoughts that science should be considered certain knowledge as an attribute of society. I recognize it as true. The basis of its theoretical explanation is a cumulative series: reflection-information-ideas-ideal-knowledge-science-post-science. I have repeatedly explained it in my posts and I don't see the point in repeating all this now. In this case, science is an attribute of society: objective, rational, essentialist, pragmatic, a priori knowledge that the ancestors teach their descendants. Its three forms are: experience-doctrines-theories. Experienced knowledge is acquired in the joint activities of people with the help of mentors, etc. Doctrines are a holistic set of knowledge about the objects of reality. They originated tens of thousands of years ago and today are the main form of science. There is a lot of speculation in them, and therefore their attribute is pluralism. Their limitations were realized by the ancient Greeks, who initiated the study of knowledge, science as a form of wisdom (Sophia) in order to create a more developed form of science, which they called theory. This is how the philosophical project of science (philosophy is the love of wisdom, the content of which is science) was born. Its main product was dialectics and logic as the canon of theorizing the sciences…

    In general, science as a set of a priori knowledge arose before philosophy and gave rise to the philosophical project as a canon for creating a more developed form of science-theory. The theories are based on a philosophical understanding of science and a practical, usually spontaneously unconscious, use of logical thinking

  3. I think that the existence of science is based on two postulates that are accepted without evidence as a self-evident fact: 1) the world exists really, that is, by itself, regardless of consciousness, personal or collective; 2)consciousness, personal and collective, is capable of knowing the world, that is, creating intellectual models of the world that are adequate to this world, confirmed in the process of interaction between man and the world. Attempts to justify this obvious but mysterious correspondence between reason and reality are beyond the scope of science. I know of three such justifications: 1)materialistic – both the world and my consciousness are products of the same matter; 2) spiritualistic – both the world and my consciousness are manifestations of the same spiritual essence; 3)both the world and my consciousness are created by the same God. Science successfully “works” under any of these justifications. I personally stick to the third one.

  4. Based on a philosophy based on the ideas of Francis Bacon. The central idea was that new knowledge could only be gained through controlled experimentation. The second most important idea was that all knowledge should be connected to each other. The scientific picture of the world should be a single whole. Individual theories cannot contradict each other.

    Before that, the so-called scholastic method of obtaining new knowledge was used in science. A certain knowledge was considered scientific when it did not contain logical contradictions within itself. If you had a theory that you could logically explain, you were a respected scientist. Experimental confirmation was not required.

Leave a Reply