Re: The Origins of a Science

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 13:52:55 -0700, in talk.origins , "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> in
<1152564775.887322.35720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Gordon Hill wrote:
Although one of the least technically qualified participants in
talk.origins, I thoroughly enjoy what I understand of the interchanges,
even contribute some and have developed a tolerance for occasional
attacks, some justified.

That said, I have been wondering about origins of a science, the seed
that germinates and from which evolved a new discipline.

I am coming to see the significant part philosophy may have played, but
am uncertain of the view you "origin" experts have.

Hypothesis: Every science began with the rational musing of
philosophers and evolved into an orderly discipline.

Test to falsify: This I have been unable to achieve; however, the idea
for this topic came from Colin McGinn's The Making of a Philosopher.
He didn't say what I suggest, but his discourse encouraged my thinking
it might be so.

As always, if this is too dumb for the group, please don't post it. If
it is posted and too dumb for a response, your silence will speak the
volumes I deserve.

You're NO fun ;-)

If by "a science" and "every science" you mean what I think you mean -
the methodical investigation of observed phenomena - and if by
"philosopher" you mean someone who sits back in a chair and thinks
about stuff, then I think you've got it back to front. Meteorology,
astronomy, heliocentrism, chemistry, radioactivity, magnetism, etc. -
they began with observations, often in the context of a previous
technical discipline, that were not in line with expectations. The
origin of a new science is interesting data. The New Theory comes
/later/, once it has become clear that there is something /there/ that
you need to have a New Theory /of/.

I think it is an error to look for the first step, it is a constant
cycle. Science, in some sense or another, goes back as far as humans
do. I can make claims (and I have) that *formal* science (or a rather
soft notion) of "formal" starts with philosopher (particularly with
Ockham's slicing of philosophy from theology). But science itself goes
much further back. People (for a broad notion of people) observe,
build models, and test those models in the world. We have been doing
this for a very long time. Things can only go beyond expectation when
you have a sufficiently useful well developed set of expectations. The
process of formalizing and abstracting those internal models is
inherently a philosophic exercise. When we got good enough at that job
of abstracting it got its own name, science.

Hmm... my prejudices are showing, perhaps. I've read all those
biographies of the Great Scientist who is The Father of
Something-ology. There are all those old Greek philosophers who had a
theory and figured they were done for the day, and their descendants in
poor old Galileo's accusers, and generations of misdirected anatomists.
And then there's the science fiction stories where someone makes a
world-changing discovery or invention...

I suppose science starts for the first time ever when you start to make
a serious effort to address discrepancies between received wisdom and
actual observations. Is that a philosophical activity? Well, it's not
armchair philosophy...

....and one discipline grows out of another...does it?

I don't like the comparison of evolution, though. Scientific progress
isn't necessarily evolutionary change. There are revolutions as well.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Origins of a Science
    ... That said, I have been wondering about origins of a science, the seed ... that germinates and from which evolved a new discipline. ... for this topic came from Colin McGinn's The Making of a Philosopher. ... the methodical investigation of observed phenomena - and if by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Origins of a Science
    ... That said, I have been wondering about origins of a science, the seed ... for this topic came from Colin McGinn's The Making of a Philosopher. ... you have a sufficiently useful well developed set of expectations. ... process of formalizing and abstracting those internal models is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... I have heard Michael Ruse speak, have read some of his papers and knew he ... teach Creation "Science" as science was struck down due to his testimony. ... While Robert introduced me as a philosopher of science, ... "ALL mutation is random according to evolution theory" {"Oh, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
    ... >>alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the observed ... > It is the essence of science. ... The light had not disengaged and the Universe was dark. ... > `philosopher' might say this destroys the credibility of these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal
    ... >>alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the observed ... > It is the essence of science. ... The light had not disengaged and the Universe was dark. ... > `philosopher' might say this destroys the credibility of these ...
    (sci.math)