What are some distinctions when it comes to thinking of modern science as a “method” and a “philosophy”?


"science born result , consequence of philosophy; cannot survive without philosophical (particularly epistemological) base." result of copernican revolution, epistemological, , theories , writings of hume, theories of cause-and-effect revolutionized science "philosophically". epistemology 2nd branch of philosophy, , both hume , copernicus, galileo , others after copernicus, laid epistemological framework.

able because "it not special sciences teach man think; philosophy lays down epistemological criteria of special sciences." epistemology of aristotelian cosmology wrong, such things not easy see when have been held both dogma , science hundreds of years. reason won out; galileo not hanged.

aristotle's epistemology not wrong, however, when came physical sciences. invented modern science of taxonomy hands-on approach flora , fauna of isle of lesbos, cataloging every species , determining genus , species.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/scienc...

what distinctions when comes thinking of modern science “method” , “philosophy”

chose topic discussion board week, , have 2 pretty paragraphs, want see others opinions , compare , etc final post.


Arts & Humanities Philosophy Next



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nissan Quest vans .. any bad reviews?

Volkswagen Beetle History, Mission, Strategy from 1930-1960 [need links]?

Short survey/interview questions for my English paper..plz help :)?