Hey can anyone advise me on some good scientific philosophy?
Printable View
Hey can anyone advise me on some good scientific philosophy?
I recently read "Causation: a short introduction" by Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum (Oxford, 2013) that I would recommend for its clarity surveying the issues associated with the idea of causality. The problem is central to science and it is not obvious.
1.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is brilliant and the "go to" book for scientific philosophy and the history of science.
2. Punctuated Equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould is a challenging read but also an excellent one on Evolution and the formation of scientific paradigms.
3. The Order of Things by Michel Foucault is a very interesting, if a bit dry, account of how scientific discoursed developed.
4. The History of Sexuality Part 1 by Michel Foucault is a discursive analysis of how sexual norms (and deviancies) become established in societies.
4.If you're an old-school objectivist thinker, you'd probably enjoy Realism and the Art of Science by Karl Popper. I, myself, am not a fan, but some of my objectivist friends love him.
Depends on precisely what you mean (are you looking for a book on the relationship between science and philosophy? A historical overview? Or just books on philosophy of science?), but I'd highly recommend this one: http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Th...dp/0521592712/ To me, it gets to the root of the logical philosophy of science in an extremely detailed manner.
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
— the area of philosophy that explores the nature of scientific knowledge, its structure and functions, methods of scientific knowledge, methods validation and development of scientific knowledge.
As for me a very muddy topic
If you're interested in the philosophy of science then of course, without wanting to sound fatuous, you can google it to find authors who tickle your curiosity. Personally, it's not really a subject I've explored very much so I'm not in a position to make recommendations But I wanted to say, as you might not know, that there is now a branch of philosophy which calls itself 'experimental philosophy' and from what I can gather it seeks to use scientific method to actually do philosophy. I've attended one meeting on the subject but I can't tell you to much about it and I think you know what I'd recommend...
I suggest Thomas Kuhn, as well as Karl Popper: Logic of Scientific Discovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
To bring this thread back, here is Eugene Wigner's 1960 article, "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences": http://www.physics.smu.edu/coan/4392/wigner.pdf
I am reading it now with hope that it will clarify some issues of scientific philosophy for me.
I've read Wigner's article, but I am still trying to make sense out of it. Making sense out of something like that would mean rationalizing it in someway.
I am not as amazed that mathematics can reach statistical conclusions as Wigner is. These mathematical conclusions are not about anything in reality but about the data obtained from observations. An observation is not reality, but a measurement of some aspect of it. Once the observation is made, one has data, not the original reality.
Wigner wants to know whether mathematics is the “empirical law of epistemology” because it works so well. That is, is reality mathematical?
From a bare-bones perspective, one could restrict science to the following pragmatic program:
1 Collect data.
2 Use mathematical theories to model the data.
3 Make predictions from the mathematical models.
4 Collect more data and see if the predictions match beyond what randomness would expect.
I think that is all science need do to have value. That is all that artificial intelligence systems do to get a machine to read handwriting or a car to drive on its own. But Wigner wants to answer a philosophical question as well. If mathematics is so accurate, IS the universe deterministic or indeterministic because it can be modeled by mathematics? Is reality the model?
To test this idea Wigner wants to know if mathematics is “unique”. One may as well assume that reality is unique. Is there only one way to do mathematics to get the right results? This is like asking if Jesus is the only way to achieve salvation, or could Krishna get us there also?
However, mathematical models of reality do not appear to be unique. Regarding what we consider to be “gravitation” today, there are various models that have lead to accurate enough predictions over the past two thousand years. The Copernican model is not the same one used by Einstein. These models seem to be improvements on each other, so maybe the unique model will be found in the future.
If one is looking for the most accurate model to make predictions today one would probably use John Moffat’s modified gravity rather than Einstein’s gravity. Why not switch? I think the reason is because one doesn’t want a theory that only makes the best predictions. One is not just interested in practical, empirical results. One is not just interested in science, but also philosophy. One also wants to know the truth about reality when using a scientific model.
scientific philosophy? That's a new one. Make it and hope it doesn't blow up.
It occurred to me recently that I don't think there exist "laws of nature". It is not that nature is chaotic, but choices are made at various levels of reality and the lower levels aggregate and they appear as predictable solid ground. Choice and laws are in conflict, but predictions can be made in both.
My philosophy of science would be that science creates models. Those models provide useful predictions, but reality is not any of these models. My philosophy of science would claim that there are no laws of nature that science approximates.
I think one can have a philosophy of science since there are different ways to approach what people think science is doing.