Philosophy of Science Essay

The field of physics encompasses a variety of topics and sub-disciplines which include astronomy, cosmology, and particle physics, to name a few. As a student in the physics field, it is important to understand how physicists actually write and make arguments in their respective disciplines. By being able to analyze and rhetorically inspect an article, the material becomes more comprehensible and some potential implications of the writing begin to resound with the reader. The more we learn about

The controversy within the field and study of Philosophy is continuously progressing. Many ideas are prepared, and challenged by other philosophers causing the original idea to be analyzed more thoroughly. One of the cases that challenge many philosophers is The Problem of Induction. David Hume introduced the world to The Problem of Induction. The Problem of Induction claims that, past experiences can lead to future experiences. In this essay, I will explain how the problem of induction does not

So, Francesca Vada A. December 3, 2015 2BIO-9 PHLSCI Popper on the Falsifiability of String Theory Karl Popper is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century believed that strength of a scientific theory lies in its both being susceptible to falsification, and not actually being falsified by criticism made of it. He considered that if a theory cannot, in principle, be falsified by criticism, it is not a scientific theory. Today, we are taught that inside an atom, there are protons

Induction is a form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion, David Hume (1711 -1776), in his book ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ of induction, wrote; ““instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience (pp. 89) [1]. Adamson (1999) wrote that evidence shows that induction was first scrutinised in the late 17th and early 18th century, when contemporary views of the world were questioned, near the end of the scientific revolution

Objectivity is a funny way of people justifying their own subjections. Edmund Husserl is the guy to talk to if you want to be confused by what “objectivity” means. I say confused, because Husserl’s path through the end product of the phenomenological reduction leads him to contradictions, which generate revisions of his investigation. Eventually his revisions lead to a happy phenomenological-objective ending and will be discussed along with another objectivity viewpoint: The View from Nowhere. Lastly

David Hume presents an argument that unobserved matters of fact are irrational to believe in. In this argument, Hume argues that unobserved matters of fact have only been justified by the relation of cause and effect. Yet cause and effect is not a logical justification of unobserved matters of fact. I agree with Hume’s argument because the world is everchanging there is nothing to say that the causes we see will always lead to the same effect that we have always seen. Hume argues that there is no

realism versus antirealism debate is one that is related in some way to almost every branch of philosophy of science (Chakravartty, 2016). It has often been the case that astronomy has been the source wider questions regarding realism in science more generally. In the following I will agree, with Hacking, that we often have reason to hold realism even about unobserved and perhaps unobservable entities in science. I will then argue that the fact that, before the telescope, in astronomy one could only observe

For as much as I like Ernst Mach’s views on idealism and the excited belief that science will replace god in some form or another (like the form George Berkeley invoked in his excerpt), I find myself trying to understand Mach’s opposition to atomic theory as it was forming in the 19th to 20th century. My understanding is that to Mach, appearance is reality and that subsequently the sensations or observations we make are what is real. At the time, atoms could really only be inferred to exist; direct

One of the famous, influential philosophers in the 20th century, Karl Popper, includes striking ideas of his scientific view. His aim was to understand science. Popper called the problem of distinguishing science from non-science the “problem of demarcation” (Smith, 58). Popper proposed a solution to the problem, and it was the “Falsificationism”. He described endorsing a view of scientific validity based on a conception of “falsifiability.” Falsifiability is an ability to prove that hypothesis or

Positivists believed in the unity of the sciences which includes the natural sciences and the social science(Hahn, Carnap & Neurath, 2001). This unity of science involved the notion that everything on earth -including people- could be empirically studied (Hahn et al, 2001). I reiterate that positivism benefits all those who want to take control of those