|
Hi all,
So what is philosophy? One definition is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence."
Another is "the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge".
And the context must often associated with philosophy, "a standpoint or belief held by a person that guides their behaviour".
Philosophy isn't just restricted to stances on ethics and morality.
Philosophy is also the study of what constitutes logical reasoning.
e.g. if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C? But if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A?
I will come back to the latter later.
Philosophy also asks what is sufficient evidence to substantiate a position. A particular viewpoint may not be provable in the strict sense but what evidence is there to support this conclusion. Example, a belief such as atheism.
Philosophy examines the rules of logic and asks such questions as what it means for a proposition to be true.
Philosophy examines the relationship between logic and mathematics.
In mathematics the rules of step-wise logic lead to definitive proof of theorems. However, in mathematics there are assertions (axioms) that are considered self-evident e.g. if a = b then a+c = b+c. These assertions are used in the proofs of theorems. It was the hope of early mathematicians that all mathematics could be derived from a set of basic axioms. Godel showed that non-trivial systems are incomplete i.e. that there are always statements that cannot be proved from the axioms within the system.
In science, we have the scientific method.
Experiment and observation lead to a hypothesis, which is formalised into a model or set of mathematical relationships.
The model is then used to make testable predictions, which confirm the assumptions of the model.
Continued observations may lend more credence to the hypothesis and elevate it to the status of a theory.
It must be understood that in science indisputable proof is not possible.
In mathematics such proof is possible but in science "proof" depends on continued supportive evidence.
In the end, I have a theory T which predicts I will get data D.
My observations confirm data D within some confidence limit. Therefore, I conclude T is correct. But how logical is that?
I go back to the question "if A implies B then does B necessarily imply A"?
Thus, the scientific method is certainly open to philosophical discussion.
One may believe that a theory accurately describes the real universe but there is no way of verifying this. Data is incapable of proving theories, it can only lend more credence to a theory. In fact, as history shows, there is a very real possibility that some of our models are entirely wrong, despite their perceived agreement with observations.
Inductively, scientists extrapolate theories to apply in any part of the universe. The cosmological principle is NOT a provable scientific fact. There is no way I can observe every part of the universe. In science we cannot prove that a law will apply in every part of the universe in the same way. However, for the sake of progress, I can assume that it does until an exception is found.
Finally, what is the criteria of validation, the point of acceptance, of a hypothesis as a theory? How many observations validate a theory?
Theories in science are not absolute truths. They invariably change and they continue to evolve into something wider.
I would argue that a scientific position is really just a weigh-up of all the evidence at hand. Is that science or philosophy, or both?
Regards, Rob
|