Reply To: Instrumentalism in the philosophy of science

Index Forums Spirituality & Philosophy Instrumentalism in the philosophy of science Reply To: Instrumentalism in the philosophy of science

Starshade
Participant
  • Type: NeFi
  • Development: ll-l
  • Attitude: Seelie

I have no ability to truly judge where I am at the moment, my current issue has been finishing my thesis, and I did use a bit of philosophy in it, and within the limited scope available I used Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyrabend, more correctly Lakatos view on science as a series of competing programmes.

In my case, it was not that much about sides, I just needed someone explaining how to research. I encountered something good, and something really, really bad for a thesis; the truth. As far I know, it is truth, since I observe it. Others can observe it, and it do fit in modern research.

But within the research paradigm it were to fit, it did not fit at all. No good fit with current paradigm in a field, without progress, for more than 40 years. Where competing fields study same subject with different data. And it’s not within my my field, really; I borrowed an method, and it failed, sort of.  Part of my problem was, I saw most of the “Science” were “intuitive” and with that, I specify artistic exploration of Natural Science with production of artistic logic, feeling what is “right”, making models, testing them, etc.

Worst of all; no scientist could ever find flaws, or tell if anything worked or not ever, without breaking the system. I think I managed to. Btw; Lakatos view of science, also includes Falsification. Nothing is ever Science if it cannot be tested (Popper), Lakatos is not that strict, however; he merely specify that the truth be testable. Having criteria for failing. CT/Vultology do, I think. And do not fail, since it’s an empirical programme of testing data, not an programme upholding an hypothesis. And have had several ideas falsified repeatedly. And I am used to Science with no ability of anyone, to falsify it’s science. And I am fine with it, since I must. I am limited by exposure, and exposure only, when it comes to philosophy of science.

I have no exposure to it, and by this, I am literal here; for me it’s a lack, undeveloped potential, the current trend seem to be mishmash of French Sociology, STS or discourse as a means of bridging the gap. Borrow some idea from a Frenchman, since we can’t do without. I have to add, my professor is not trained here in this country; and it shows. My thesis is probably the only one proving anything as far I know, most is writing about the “philosophical heaviness of statues” or something similar, out of Bourdieu. Etc..

In my case, I needed to go opposite direction, I used Lakatos and the Natural Science to explain to readers why instrumental truths still is science, since we need them to figure out something. Since some readers simply would assume “Kuhn’s falsification is definition of Natural Science”, and for a Physicist of Biologist reading my thesis, knowing Kuhn meant something quite different, would take an statement on my part, quite harsh… Since I tested an hypothesis never able to be tested, ever. And proved it wrong. Meaning I should have stated by Kuhn’s view, the original view were not just flawed, it was not a valid part of any Scientific research, at all. Period.  Which is a view, I cannot agree upon, mostly instrumentally, since nobody would expect it valid.

 

  • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by Starshade.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON