Reply With QuoteBut "this approach" was and is a method of philosophical enquiry? I believe...isn't the point of philosophy after all!Originally Posted by Pebble
The cornerstone of science is experimental methodology. Experiments need to be independent of the individual carrying out the experiment, and give predictible results in controlled but otherwise independent circumstances. Philosophy, never tries this approach out, I believe!
But "this approach" was and is a method of philosophical enquiry? I believe...isn't the point of philosophy after all!
"No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority." Robert Heinlein
Made the mistake of reading some philosophy and ended with a question - silly me.
Deductive reasoning is accepted as truly rational: progression from provable premises to inescapable conclusions. This is however rare in science.
Inductive reasoning is common in science: Generalisation from provable premises to similar situations. Much of physics, cannot tell what the rest of the universe is doing.
Inference to best explanation, is even more common: Use of a combination of provable but not necessarily related, provable premises to conclude cause and effect on the basis of probability. Sometimes 'provable' with experiment, sometimes not (evolution)
The bulk of reliance on scientific methodology is dependent on proving that probability is logical rather than subjective, and this cannot be proven!
Finally: Data aquisition is theory dependent - you only look for what you believe is possible!
Conclusion: Science is not rational, we are all believers!
I know this is wrong, but how to prove it, suggestions welcomed
Pebble,
Can you help here? As I said earlier, I haven't read the book. The nearest thing I can find is this:
http://www.questia.com/library/book/...mir-okasha.jsp
Not very helpful, as it gives only snippets. How does the author get— or purport to get —to the conclusion that " Science is not rational, we are all believers!" ?
Need to expand slightly. Independent verifiable experimentation in philosophy - how so?
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Russel etc certainly kept very quite about this if that is what they were doing. Or are you crediting 'though experiment' with being independently verifiable.
The issue of inference to best fit is clearly reliant on probability. He proposes that most probability is a matter of opinion, i.e. your belief that there is a 90% probability that the sun will rise tomorrow is your opinion, not a disprovabale fact until tomorrow. Certainly this would be very different to my use of probability.
I think however the mainstay, was that unless a paradigm shift is occurring, research confines it self to exploring details withing the currently prevaling orthrodox view. We are not challanging the fundamentals, these we accept (believe in) until the evidence base becomes incompatible with status quo and then we look for a new paradigm. The idea is that mostly we explain away anomalies - e.g. the non elipsoid trajectory of pluto, dark matter etc. Here we pursue evidence that supports our initial belief, so in putting the answer before the question, we are behaving like creationists - trying to find facts that fit the theory rather than trying to disprove our original theory - ie testing it to destruction.
Basically, the scientific method. Pretty much the whole point of philosophy is that it thinks about things without ever bothering to check if those thoughts actually match up with reality. Once you start testing to see what really happens, you are doing science and not philosophy.
As you say, this is really a matter of opinion that depends very much on how you define philosophy. However, I suspect that while your opinion is similar to the definition given by philosophers, mine is more similar to the one used by most scientists and the general public.
Again, irrelevant. Chemistry was once called alchemy. Astronomy was once called astrology. You can't just assume that the historic usage of a word is the same as its current usage.You might like to note that much of what is now called science was once called natural philosophy.
And here is where we disagree. Empiricism is the school of philosophy dating back to Aristotle who criticised Plato's approach of attempting to derive truth from thought alone without reference to experience.
Plato's top down approach is contrasted with the younger philosopher's bottom up approach in this famous depiction of the two men together. Plato is poiting up at the source of all his knowledge, heavenly ideals. At the same time Aristotle is indicating downwards at the earth and solid reality, where he thought one should look for truth.
Or at least that's what I was taught in my Philosophy of Physics lectures.
Since the time of Aristotle empiricsm was put on a philosophical back burner until developments in experimentation launched what we know call science.
More on empiricism here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Eeerrrrr sorry to pop back to this but eeerrr 'cough' Psychology is a science. In many ways it can be seen as more demanding than other branches. I often encounter comments like this - usually by people that (i) have not done a psychology degree (ii) have not done a psychology PhD, (iii) do not work in a leading experimental department, (iv) are not actively publishing in experimental psychology, (v) do not try to tackle the main issues facing experimental psychology on a daily basis. This is not directed at you Pebble - just the thematic properties of comments like that....
Now - there are certainly sections of 'fluffy psychology' (which no one based in an experimental department takes seriously) - but using that to bash the real science over the head is like using shledrake to undermine biology....
Last edited by Dr B; 14th August 2008 at 10:59 AM.
On a more general note - experimental psychology (as we know it today) came out of what was Experimental Philosophy.
People like James (USA) and Stout (UK) were among some of the first to cross the divide.
On another note. Don't confuse Philosophy per-se with the Philosophy of Science specifically. I find the latter extremely useful for understanding the limitations of science.
No I do not work in psychology, but have interactions with clinical psychologists and find (beware testimonial) that the evidence base they work with is thin, and there is a lack of appraciation of this.I often encounter comments like this - usually by people that (i) have not done a psychology degree (ii) have not done a psychology PhD, (iii) do not work in a leading experimental department, (iv) are not actively publishing in experimental psychology, (v) do not try to tackle the main issues facing experimental psychology on a daily basis. This is not directed at you Pebble - just the thematic properties of comments like that....
Now - there are certainly sections of 'fluffy psychology' (which no one based in an experimental department takes seriously) - but using that to bash the real science over the head is like using shledrake to undermine biology....
Point taken about true basic psychological experimentation. But this will remain tarred with the general brush as long as the foot soldiers generalise the results of experiments to situations where the outcomes are either untested or poorly evaluated.
So wouldn't it be equally accurate to call the scientific approach of Aristotle science, rather distinct from (even hampered by) philosophy at the time?
Practically speaking, people do science-like stuff all the time - making guesses about how things might work, trying them out and seeing what happens, modfying their explicit world models the same way the brain modifies its subconscious models. They'd do that even if every philosopher who ever lived had been strangled at birth.
To a certain extent, science is largely a formalisation of natural (and non-superstitous) approaches to the world, along with the body of knowledge that has accumulated from past practice, with the addition of rather more formal/accurate measurement and use of mathematics in some areas.
I can see some point in codifying useful ways of thinking, maybe even calling that collection of ways of thinking 'philosophy', but that doesn't mean philosophy can claim any kind of monopoly over those ways of thinking, or even any credit for inventing most of them.
I suspected as much - some areas of clinical (because its more medical) is very fluffy with regard to what mainstream psych is all about. However, you should not extrapolate from that limited observation to tarnish a whole discipline od research.
With respect - it will only remain tarned by those making the mistake you just did......the fallacy of the sweeping generalisation perhaps? 8) Anyway...no worries I just wanted to pick up that often used but utterly fallacious argument....But this will remain tarred with the general brush as long as the foot soldiers generalise the results of experiments to situations where the outcomes are either untested or poorly evaluated.
Now back to the real debate.......
Thanks, Pebble.
When I see the word paradigm nowadays, I feel a pang of something like pity, as for an old acquaintance who has fallen into low company and bad ways...
It would be interesting to hear from the working scientists on the forum whether they recognize anything of their own experience in the notion of normal science— unrevolutionary puzzle-solving within a broadly agreed framework— punctuated by bouts of revolutionary fervour.
I would first like to pick up on the point about medicine. In terms of applying scientific methodology to real life, it is difficult to think of an area where there has been more effort than medicine. Over the past 30 years double blind methodology has been appled to vast numbers over prolonged periods followed by extensive registries to document that, that which has been observed occurs in real life populations. Sure there are areas of medicine that have lagged behind. But there is nothing fluffy about most of pharmacology anymore. Even in areas such as hospital infection, models of care delivery and preventative medicine, new techniques have been developed to overcome the constraints of moving real science out of the 'ideal' but artificial controlled enviornment.
Interesting thread everyone. Most enjoyable.
Just like to say that it is good to see some fighting the corner for philosophers, I always did think they get an unfair bashing a lot of the time.
The term 'philosophy' carries negative connotations (as in 'I have a new age philosophy') but has been responsible for formulation of logic, is linked closely with mathematics and has helped to inform science (Popper).
Possibly, psychology is also subject to a similar bad press because the term has been usurped or feature more highly in people's minds than other more rigorous branches of the discipline.
Regards
Median
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks