Post by jonbain on Aug 24, 2023 7:31:43 GMT
Its quite astonishing how even those who teach this subject professionally,
often are clueless as to what it even entails; in practical terms.
Because when Newton discovered his laws,
he could not have got them from a book labelled 'science'.
He certainly used the scientific METHOD to verify his laws;
to prove them accurately.
But HOW he knew which laws to even attempt to prove or disprove,
is itself beyond the scope of that proof.
These are often termed 'intuitions' or more informally 'guesses'.
But its not like he stuck an apple in his ear, to see if that would
prove gravity; and by that I mean, as unscientific as intuitions are,
they are not random nor chaotic either.
This is why attempting to properly understand the method of science
without placing it in the context of other methods, is fruitless.
One can still DO science without such understanding, in a by-rote
machine-like process.
But when the variables change and new complications arrive,
then without a proper understanding of philosophy of science,
the science itself will become increasingly incorrect,
as the terrain changes.
But it is also not meaningful to attempt philosophy of science
without first indulging in the science itself. And this is where
the philosophers so often fail, as philosophy is often seen as
a cheap alternative to real science; and wrongly so.
I am reminded of that kid who got banned here who had the
idea that the mathematical arrangement of words in
historical books and the like, could dictate future events.
His philosophy was fairly woeful and outright superstitious.
And he back it up with belligerence and rudeness whenever
it was proved for the nonsense it was.
But as bad as it was; his ideas were still philosophical.
He was trying to discover patterns that could predict the future.
Much like the way Newton discovered his laws which do
accurately predict the future.
And a better word for this idea of
'intuitive pattern recognition of the imagination',
is phenomenology.
Now philosophy of science is more than just phenomenology,
it also entails where the academic lines between the various
science, arts, and economics all intersect.
And that entails comprehension of the terms:
Metaphysics (and all its chimeras and shadows),
as well as ontology and epistemology.
But all ideas have, by definition, an implicit philosophy.
So to ever ask the question 'Is X philosophy'?
is itself illogical.
All X's HAVE a philosophy.
Of course, not all philosophies are worthwhile...
