Schweinsteiger
@Schweinsteiger
16 okur puanı
Mayıs 2020 tarihinde katıldı
Sokrates dünyanın düzenini en iyisine göre kuran ilahi bir Akıl istiyordu. Platon'un mitolojik ilahiyatı bu talebi karşılıyordu; fakat Aristoteles'in Tanrısı ne dünyadaki düzeni planlar, ne de iyi bir amaç için çalışır. Tanrının kendisi, kendi mükemmelliğini tefekküre dalmış bir nihayettir. Dünyaya etkisi, yıldızların göğünün dönüşüne sebep olmakla kısacası uzaydaki hareketi oluşturmuş olmakla sınırlıdır. ilk Hareket Ettirici'nin, Anaksagoras ile başlangıçta mı yer alacağı, yoksa Aristoteles ile sonda mı yer alacağı çok fark etmiyor gibi görünmektedir. Gaye felsefesi baş aşağı edilmiş bir mekanizma haline gelmiştir. Eğer Sokrates Metatizik'i okuyabilseydi, kendisinin başlattığı yeni düşünce hareketinin sonucunu tanıyamazdı.
Her çiçeğin bir mevsimi, her kitabın bir zamanı vardır. Haziranın tadını yeni hikâyelerle çıkarın.
Why did Kuhn’s ideas cause such a storm? Because in addition to his descriptive claims about the history of science, Kuhn advanced some controversial philosophical theses. Ordinarily we assume that when scientists trade their existing theory for a new one, they do so on the basis of evidence. But Kuhn argued that adopting a new paradigm involves a certain act of faith on the part of the scientist. He allowed that a scientist could have good reasons for abandoning an old paradigm for a new one, but he insisted that reasons alone could never rationally compel a paradigm shift. ‘The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm’, Kuhn wrote, ‘is a conversion experience which cannot be forced.’ And in explaining why a new paradigm rapidly gains acceptance in the scientific community, Kuhn emphasized the peer pressure of scientists on one another. If a given paradigm has very forceful advocates, it is more likely to win widespread acceptance.
Sayfa 77 - Oxford University Press
So far our brief account of the history of science has focused mainly on physics. This is no accident, as physics is both historically important and in a sense the most fundamental scientific discipline. For the objects that other sciences study are themselves made up of physical entities, but not vice versa. Consider botany, for example. Botanists study plants, which are composed of cells, which are themselves composed of bio-molecules, which are ultimately made up of atoms, which are physical particles. So botany deals with entities that are less ‘fundamental’ than does physics—though that is not to say it is less important. This is a point we shall return to in Chapter 3. But even a brief description of modern science’s origins would be incomplete if it omitted all mention of the non-physical sciences.
Sayfa 7 - Oxford University Press
Galileo is generally regarded as the first modern physicist. He was the first to show that the language of mathematics could be used to describe the behaviour of material objects, such as falling bodies and projectiles. To us this seems obvious—today’s scientific theories are routinely formulated in mathematical language, not only in physics but also in the biological and social sciences. But in Galileo’s day it was not obvious: mathematics was widely regarded as dealing with purely abstract entities, hence inapplicable to physical reality. Another innovative aspect was Galileo’s emphasis on testing hypotheses experimentally. To the modern scientist this may again seem obvious. But in Galileo’s day experimentation was not generally regarded as a reliable means of gaining knowledge. Galileo’s emphasis on experiment marks the beginning of an empirical approach to studying nature that continues to this day.
Sayfa 5 - Oxford University Press
The cases of altruism and sexuality considered in this chapter both give us some sense of why we should be suspicious of any ethical or political argument that is based on what is natural. We can be drawn into these kinds of arguments from all sorts of laudable motives. For instance, campaigners against anti-homosexual laws will often cite evidence of homosexual behaviour among various species of birds and mammals in support of the view that homosexuality is natural. Modern medical orthodoxy now holds that masturbation should be not only allowed, but positively encouraged, because it is natural. Religious critics of interpretations of evolutionary biology that suggest we must resign ourselves to a society ruled by selfishness have been led to insist that, on the contrary, human altruism is not only desirable but natural. But 'natural' in these contexts really means fixed, given, determined. It denotes not the act of a free individual, but the playing out of an unalterable physical law. Political questions about what sexual behaviour should be allowed, or how the interests of different groups within society are to be balanced and regulated, are decided by human laws, not by laws of nature.
Sayfa 122 - Oxford University Press
