Scientific philosophy

This conversation between Peirce, founder of pragmatism, and neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty is compiled from their own published words. This wide-ranging conversation, covering almost every field of philosophy, reveals the richness of Peirce's thought, and the poverty of Rorty's.

If this paper is of interest to you, you might  also want to look at "Why I'm a Peirce Person" (2014) and "The Legitimacy of Metaphysics" (2007).

From Lantzky et al. (1978): Catastrophe theory, the recent development of René Thom, permits mathematical descriptions to be obtained for physical processes in which the dependent parameter has abrupt changes in value and, over some range of values of the independent parameters, assumes one of several values for a given value of the independent parameters. Catastrophe theory is briefly discussed and potential applications to geologic processes are mentioned. The theory is applied to the Permian extinction of marine invertebrates; our conclusion is that a reduction in oceanic salinity was a more significant factor in the extinction of marine invertebrates than was a reduction in the area of shallow seas. INTRODUCTION A physical process in which the dependent parameter behaves as a smoothly changing function of the independent parameters is commonly describable by the use of differential equations. In contrast, it has been difficult to model processes for which the dependent parameter has abrupt changes in value and assumes one of several values for a given value of the independent parameters. The recent development of catastrophe

A single philosophical error on Einstein's part has retarded physics and cosmology for over a century. The error is simply this: the objectification of motion. Classical mechanics assumed that the universe presents us with two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. Matter exists; motion occurs. Matter, that is, anything in existence, has xyz dimensions and location. Motion is not-part‖ of the universe; it is what those parts do. In objectifying motion, Einstein assumed instead that motion had material properties. Like Maxwell, he started out with the assumption that light was a particle instead of wave motion in a sea of particles. This was an objectification similar to the theory that heat actually was a-caloric fluid,‖ instead of the vibratory motion of atoms. As shown in this paper, this one error invalidates the Special and General Theories of Relativity. The attractiveness of those theories is dependent more upon the popularity of indeterministic, unscientific philosophy than upon the validity of the data offered in support. Examined in detail, the oft-cited-proofs‖ of rela-tivity, such as the Eddington solar eclipse observations and the Hafele-Keating flight of clocks around Earth fail to prove anything. The data were so poor that their interpretation as supportive is an embarrassment to science.

There was no Big Bang. See:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) states that the entropy or disorder of an isolated system can only increase. And yet, we see numerous systems all around us that that clearly have decreasing entropy and increasing order: the SLT-Order Paradox. Systems philosophers have proposed numerous solutions to the paradox without success. From Schrödinger's "negentropy" to Prigogine's "fluctuations," "distance from equilibrium ," "nonlinearity," or "self-organizing," there always has been residual bias in favor of the system over the environment. At one extreme, the SLT was said to predict the eventual "heat death" of the finite, expanding universe. As with all paradoxes, however, the solution simply involves a change in beginning assumptions. The paradox dissolves if one considers the universe to be infinite. Then, the SLT is a law of divergence; its complement is a law of convergence. Matter leaving one portion of the infinite, 3-dimensional universe invariably converges upon matter in another portion of that universe. Destruction in one place leads to construction in another place. The resulting complementarity shows the SLT to be a restatement of Newton's First Law of Motion in which the word "unless" is replaced by the word "until," in tune with Infinite Universe Theory. The imagined "ideal isolation" required by the SLT has an equally imaginary "ideal nonisolation" required by its complement. All real systems come into being at the behest of relative nonisolation and dissipate at the behest of relative isolation. Complementarity is essential for univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without.

“Science, scientism, and never-ending myths about the scientistic stance.”

Metascience, book review

Ridder, Jeroen de; Peels, Rik; Woudenberg, René van (eds.),
Scientism: Prospects and Problems,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, 320 pp., $58.43 HB

In a series of recent contributions it has been argued that Franz Brentano’s philosophical position constituted a unified system; Uriah Kriegel has called Brentano's philosophy as “the last grand system of Western philosophy”. The goal of the present paper is to scrutinise this claim and shed light on Brentano's methodological approach and his style of reasoning. I pay particular attention to two aspects: Brentano’s view that philosophy should be done in a rigorous, scientific manner and the fragmentary character of Brentano’s work. I argue that both aspects stand in contrast to the very idea of system-philosophy: the maxim that philosophy should adopt the method of the natural sciences was intended by Brentano as a way of distancing himself from system-philosophy; while the fragmentary character of Brentano’s work does not fulfill the aspiration of system-philosophy to provide an answer to everything. Yet, the incompleteness of his work is not an arbitrary or contingent aspect; it is rather a necessary side-effect of his methodological views.

Among historians of philosophy it is often taken for granted that the "Brentano school" was one of the influential philosophical movements at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century-but Brentano's own contributions are often eclipsed by that of his direct students. This invites to reflect on the nature of and the unity within the school. Since Brentano's conception of a rigorous, scientific philosophy had a strong impact on his students, it has been argued that this conception constitutes a unifying element in an otherwise heterogeneous group. The scope of this article is to shed light on this thesis and to show its limits. I argue for a differentiated view: the Brentano school is best seen not as a compact movement, but as a heterogeneous group of scholars who approached, in a given historical and geographical period, similar topics in very similar ways.

The physical cause of gravitation is simple: the collision of one thing with another. Here I propose that the unseen particles involved in these collisions provide the acceleration that drives gravitation. We do not know exactly what these particles are, but it is clear they must be decelerated in the process. Here I assume they are “aether” particles, as distinguished from the anathematic fixed “ether” particles nullified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. Having been decelerated, aether particles become lethargic, tending to hang around whatever baryonic matter was involved in the collision. Like the nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere, these aether particles are entrained, attached to Earth as a far-reaching “dark matter” halo. They provide the physical reason for interpretations of gravity calling for “curved space.” At low altitudes this entrained “aetherosphere” allows little of the “ether wind” that Michelson and Morley tried to measure. The upshot: proximal aether is less active (lower pressure) than distal aether (higher pressure). Things in the vicinity of massive objects receive stronger impacts from the distal side of the halo than from the proximal side. This Aether Deceleration Theory is supported by much of the data generally considered as confirmation of General Relativity Theory.

The absurdities in current physics and cosmology are founded on indeterministic presuppositions uncovered in this review. Once subconsciously held presuppositions are stated, they become assumptions, objects amenable to study. Each indeterministic assumption has its deterministic opposite. To obtain a logically coherent set of fundamental assumptions, one must include generalized infinity, which is resisted vehemently by the present culture. Nonetheless, the ten deterministic assumptions are: 1. MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not. 2. CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes. 3. UNCERTAINTY: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything. 4. INSEPARABILITY: Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion. 5. CONSERVATION: Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. 6. COMPLEMENTARITY: All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things. 7. IRREVERSIBILITY: All processes are irreversible. 8. INFINITY: The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions. 9. RELATIVISM: All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things. 10. INTERCONNECTION: All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion. Among the primary conclusions: time is motion, light is motion, the universe is Euclidean, there is a dynamic ether, gravitation is a push, and the "Big Bang Theory" must be replaced by the infinite universe theory.

The Ten Assumptions of Science presents the logically coherent set of assumptions destined to define 21st century scientific philosophy. Glenn Borchardt first explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for scientific thinking. By exploring the opposition between deterministic and indeterministic views, he clearly shows how critical choices among underlying assumptions either clarify or muddle scientific analysis.
He shows how customary mixtures of deterministic and indeterministic assumptions are responsible for the current confusion in modern physics. According to Dr. Borchardt, only rare physicists and philosophers have an inkling of the nature of time, space, energy, and matter. The need for reassessing our fundamental assumptions is indicated by the present sorry state of cosmology. Otherwise intelligent scientists promulgate the idea that the universe expanded from a tiny "singularity" smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. At the very least, adherence to Borchardt’s assumptions will contribute to the rejection of the "Big Bang Theory," which has surpassed the flat Earth theory as the greatest embarrassment to serious thinkers everywhere.

Although the book makes an excellent supplement to college courses in scientific philosophy, it is an astounding eye-opener for the educated reader with an interest in science and philosophy.

The SIMAN coefficient is the average ratio obtained when each variable in a set of multivariate data is divided by the larger value for that variable in either of two samples. By dividing by the larger value for any one measurement, trace elements (or minute quantities) can be compared along with major elements (or large quantities) with each type of variable influencing the SIMAN coefficient to the same degree. SIMAN coefficients produce a similarity matrix of comparisons between analyses of all samples. The comparison of any two samples results in a coefficient that remains unchanged by later addition of other samples to the data set. The coefficient is related to the analytical precision of replicates and is probably best used where the variability within classes is low. It has been used successfully in volcanic ash correlation with trace element and major element data.

Why scientific philosophy? Why Hans Reichenbach? Is there a good reason for us to adopt the methodological approach of scientific philosophy when philosophical activity and ethics is considered? Should the philosophers be held responsible from the judgments they arrive at? According to Yaman Örs (1936-2016), who embraces the approaches of logical positivism, logical empiricism and scientific philosophy, basically as defended by Hans Reichenbach, there is and they should. Yaman Örs, the late prominent bioethicist, has played a crucial leading role in the development of this academic field in Turkey. He has a great number of invaluable works in different fields. But, this paper focuses on his works in which he covered the importance of scientific philosophy for the philosophical activity, the methodology in ethics and the moral issues arising in the field of bioethics and medical ethics. The main aim of this paper is to examine the methodological approach of Yaman Örs as a scientific philosopher and the significant role it plays in ethics and, in part, bioethics. This paper will also signify in detail the importance of the terms, “the ethics of philosophy or philosophizing”, “the ethics of philosophers”, “the problem sets in bioethics and medical ethics”, and “ethics of the professions as differentiated extensions of ethics”, all of which seem to be first raised by Yaman Örs and are quite important not only for medical ethics and bioethics, but also for philosophy as an academic field of study.

Resumen La filosofía científica es filosofía informada por la ciencia, que usa herramientas exactas como la lógica y la matemática, y proporciona a la actividad científica de un marco donde dirimir las cuestiones más generales sobre la naturaleza, el lenguaje que usamos para describirla, y el conocimiento que de ella obtenemos. Muchas teorías de la filosofía científica pueden ser contrastadas y evaluadas utilizando evidencia científica. En este artículo me concentro en caracterizar a la filosofía científica y en discutir los límites de la ciencia. AbstRAct Scientific philosophy is philosophy informed by science, which uses exact tools such as logic and mathematics, and provides a scientific activity of a framework where to settle the most general questions about nature, the language we use to describe it, and knowledge We get from her. Many theories of scientific philosophy can be contrasted and evaluated using scientific evidence. In this paper I focus on scientific philosophy and the analysis of the limits of science.