Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
10. Philosophy of Physics
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 12:15 PM
Jul 2016

You're engaged far more in deception and character assassination than you are "science".

"Shiva studied physics at Panjab University in Chandigarh, graduating as a bachelor of science in 1972 and
a master of science in 1974.[8]

After that she worked, briefly, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre before moving to Canada to pursue an M.A. in the philosophy of science at the University of Guelph (Ontario) in 1977, with a thesis entitled "Changes in the concept of periodicity of light".[8][9]

In 1978, she completed and received her PhD in philosophy at the University of Western Ontario,[10] focusing on philosophy of physics. Her dissertation was titled "Hidden variables and locality in quantum theory," in which she discussed the mathematical and philosophical implications of hidden variable theories that fall outside of the purview of Bell's theorem.[11]

She later went on to interdisciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy at the Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore.[7]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva


The philosophy of science



There is an overlap between philosophy and science

In this website, we use a practical checklist to get a basic picture of what science is and a flexible flowchart to depict how science works. For most everyday purposes, this gives us a fairly complete picture of what science is and is not. However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science.

Despite its straightforward name, the field is complex and remains an area of current inquiry. Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:

What is a law of nature? Are there any in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?

What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?

How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?

Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?


Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!

Science vs. 'non-science'
Though the field is highly specialized, a few touchstone ideas have made their way into the mainstream. Here's a quick explanation of just a few concepts associated with the philosophy of science, which you might (or might not) have encountered.

Epistemology — branch of philosophy that deals with what knowledge is, how we come to accept some things as true, and how we justify that acceptance.

Empiricism — set of philosophical approaches to building knowledge that emphasizes the importance of observable evidence from the natural world.

Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells.

Deduction — method of reasoning in which a conclusion is logically reached from premises. For example, if we know the current relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth, as well as exactly how these move with respect to one another, we can deduce the date and location of the next solar eclipse.

Parsimony/Occam's razor — idea that, all other things being equal, we should prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one.

Demarcation problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.

Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence.


Paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions — a view of science, associated with philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which suggests that the history of science can be divided up into times of normal science (when scientists add to, elaborate on, and work with a central, accepted scientific theory) and briefer periods of revolutionary science. Kuhn asserted that during times of revolutionary science, anomalies refuting the accepted theory have built up to such a point that the old theory is broken down and a new one is built to take its place in a so-called "paradigm shift."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
Oh, how the Left loves science ... MicaelS Jul 2016 #1
Trump is "the left"? bemildred Jul 2016 #2
The article in the OP was published by a left leaning website. progressoid Jul 2016 #4
It's not a right-left issue, why muddy the water with an attack on "the left". bemildred Jul 2016 #5
I can't speak for MicaelS progressoid Jul 2016 #6
We do not push this idea. bemildred Jul 2016 #7
Thankfully, we collectively don't. progressoid Jul 2016 #8
We don't shut people up here unless they get disruptive. bemildred Jul 2016 #9
Okey Dokey. progressoid Jul 2016 #14
Please do. nt bemildred Jul 2016 #15
Philosophy of Physics kristopher Jul 2016 #10
+1. nt bemildred Jul 2016 #11
Guilty as charged. Wait, what's this... progressoid Jul 2016 #12
Another sad example of your non-ability to engage with reason. kristopher Jul 2016 #13
I agree. I engaged in character assassination. progressoid Jul 2016 #16
You are incapable of rational discussion kristopher Jul 2016 #17
Perhaps you should take this up with the authors of the Wiki entries and Vandana Shiva herself. progressoid Jul 2016 #19
No, the problem lies with your falsehoods and misrepresentations, kristopher Jul 2016 #20
Well that's ironic. progressoid Jul 2016 #21
Poor progressoid... kristopher Jul 2016 #22
Uh oh. Resorting to ad hominem attacks? progressoid Jul 2016 #23
That is clearly the domain you prefer... kristopher Jul 2016 #24
So are you going to post your curriculum vitae? progressoid Jul 2016 #25
Hidden variable theory bemildred Jul 2016 #18
The OP is by a long-time anti-GMO propagandist. It's ludicrous. HuckleB Jul 2016 #29
Vandana Shiva. Crackpot, opportunist, fraud and luddite. progressoid Jul 2016 #3
Corporate GMO & Chem Trolls are destroying the credibility of science Scientific Jul 2016 #26
IS anti-GMO the new anti-vax? HassleCat Jul 2016 #27
Yeah. progressoid Jul 2016 #28
Exactly. HuckleB Jul 2016 #30
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Ghostbusters, GMOs and th...»Reply #10