Introduction
Philosophy is the study of the common questions on issues such as reality, knowledge, truth, impartiality, soundness, intelligence and speech. Science is a field whose main objective is to achieve understanding and awareness of the real world. The philosophy of science is an area of study that observes how science relates to real life in its structure, mechanism, methods, hypothesis and limitations. In order for one to well comprehend the philosophy of science, there are some fundamental components of the discipline that need to be scrutinized and these include data, theories and its shaping principles. Data are the gathered information concerning physical processes. Theories are of two types; phenomenological theories which generalize data and only explain persistent natural processes but neither highlights their neither basis nor mechanism and explanatory theories which tend to clarify observations but not generalizing them. Shaping principles are the non-experimental postulations that create the foundation of science.
Discussion
Long ago, the process of knowledge acquisition was regarded as totally intentional, coherent and experimental. This perspective of science stated that scientific theories and principles had to be convincingly confirmed or disapproved basing on objective data through an experiment. Some reliable means had to be identified because the result may be subject to the experimenter’s feelings, biasness or perception. In the early 17th century, a scientific method known as the Baconian inductivism was commonly used. This process included gathering many observations without any theoretical discrimination, inductively deducing theories from the data through simplifying them into physical laws and then gather more data to amend or decline the hypothesis. However, this method was not accurate because some theoretical presumptions are very critical and by generalizing the data, the laws applied to some physical processes which had not been observed and could not be observed such as DNA, atoms and forces like the pull of gravity.
The concept that science and religion have been in a steady conflict has no basis at all. Some communities such as the Biblical creationists were some pious leaders who have had their differences with the scientific community. Some religious beliefs which were held before like the Catholic Church tolerating geocentricism is now considered contrary to he society. Religion was an important aspect in the origin of science, for example, weighing if a coherent study of nature would be successful. The Theistic philosophy argued that a logically systematic God created the universe and nature constantly working in mathematical order would be confirmative for this certainty. The Christian religion of that era felt that creation is systematic and this logically systematic world can be known and there had to be reason to identify this sequence. They therefore settled on the conclusion that God might have made the universe in several ways and that’s why the study of nature had to be experimental. This view differs from the traditional atheism which was acknowledged in the 16th century that bases on the metaphysical view of a creation subject to chance events and claimed that the universe is not sequential.
Buddhists practice meditation and this has been proved to increase concentration level and transform emotions. It has also been biologically proved that people in fine mood can well control their sugar levels. Tenzin Gyatso(1989) -“Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things”. Buddhist monks spend most of their time in meditation everyday and their concern in science is focused on a deep inquisitiveness about the brain mechanism. Some neuroscientists are trying to identify whether there is any biological basis in the event that a Buddhist monk can focus on a particular object for several hours without diversion and recollect complex scenes in fine detail as it has always been perceived that meditation transforms the mind. Any scientific advances that can explain this phenomenon may help the Buddhist monks handle questions not tackled in traditional Buddhist teachings, for example, the subject of principles of stem cell research. As observed, certain neural processes in the brain are more coordinated in people with extensive training in meditation. Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, cloning, creationism and genetic modification all experiment the tense affiliation between faith and progressing technology.
The philosophy of language is the critical analysis into the form, birth and practice of language. The Marxist theory of ideologies reflects that any philosophical invention is not only part of realism but it also reflects another reality remote from itself. Anything ideological carries meaning and illustrates something either in it or outside itself and ideology would not be present without signs or symbols. The ‘word’ is an important aspect of behavioral communication and also the key means of personal consciousness.
The language viewpoint for logical theorists focuses on four major issues including, the nature of connotation (semantics), language application, language cognition and the connection between actuality and language. On the other hand, continental theorists look at language as an element of reason, record or politics. Language theorists look into the nature of meaning and try to explain what it implies to ‘mean’ something. They handle matters such as the genesis of meaning itself and how meaning can be recognized. They also try to examine the way into which clauses and sentences are made up entirely significant out of the denotation of its elements. They would wish to know what an orator and a listener do with language in sending message and how it is used to interact and some important areas may include subject of language acquisition, language formation and functions of vocalizations. They try to find out how language links the mind of the speaker and the one interpreting and how speech and connotation relate to reality and the world.
Among the many improvements of these scholastics in their fields of study was the principle of the ‘suppositio’ which is the explanation set for a word in a precise perspective either proper or improper depending on how it is used; allegorically, figuratively, in metonyms and other figures of speech. An appropriate ‘suppositio’ can therefore be either prescribed or material for that reason when it highlights its normal non-linguistic meaning for example, “Mary is a girl”, or to itself as a linguistic article as in “Mary has four letters”. This categorization method brought about present differences between application and citation and also between language and metalanguage. Syntax as a field in linguistics tackles the subject of constiuents of sentences basing on the principle of compositionality for it to explain the connection between significant elements and entire sentences. This principle states that a sentence can be comprehended basing on the denotation of the implication of its components, that is, morphemes and terms, together with an understanding of its formation (logic and grammar)
It has been generally observed that there is nothing as ‘the scientific method’ Because of several reasons. First, even though scientists indeed do something in their area of operation, the mass judgment of the scientific community is frequently erroneous and someone who may not agree with the majority can come up with something precisely practical. Also because science has many areas of study and scientists in those areas need specific dexterity distinctive in the field to carry out experiments like those which not entail defined conventions that provide comprehensive order on what to do at every step. Quick advancement in science can be achieved if scientists do not use a particular unvarying method. Different scientists have diverse ways of creating theories and assess them and this result to differences among them. Sometimes changes in science extensively occur because the kinds of shaping principles that are accepted by the mass transform over a period of time. Major transformations in the shaping principles are another explanation as to why there has never occurred a particular scientific technique used by all the scientists. It therefore seems that science has some limitations and several defects on certainty. Diverse features of science can be used for the needs of people, understanding ourselves and also our position in the universe. Regardless of all its deficiencies and limitations, science may be the best means for discovering the natural world.
There is abundant philosophy that surrounds the question of how math is related to science. However there is a basic answer from a scientific point of view; that mathematics provides an essential tool that is used to express scientific concepts. (Harvey, A. 2000) Math can be traced in all the aspects of life and philosopher wonder whether there is an inbuilt structure of mathematics that combines it with the reality of nature or whether it is just luck that mathematics does so well scientifically.
Mathematics is an essential tool of science, however, the process of understanding why mathematical formulas work is a whole process of science. Furthermore, the istory of mathematics and science are interrelated in that the individuals who heloed shape up scients are significantly recognized in the field of mathematics. For example, early Indian mathematicians made many astronomical observations and the foundation of algebra.
References
- Bauman, Michael. 1993. Man and Creation. Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale. Web.
- Brand, Leonard R. “Resolving the Conflict Between Science Religions” Liberty 1990.
- Bridgman, Percy W. “On Scientific Method”.
- Bumbulis, Michael “Christianity and the birth of science”. Web.
- Carroll, Robert Todd “Skeptic’s Dictionary: Occam’s Razor.” Web.
- Harvey.H. Allan (2000) “what is the direct relationship between math and science?” Web.
- Ratzsch, Del The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation- Evolution Debate pp.124-127.
- Shapin, Steven “History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions.” p. 160;
- Schick, Theodore Jr. “The end of science?” The Skeptical Inquirer, No. 2, Vol. 21, 1997;
- VN Voloshinov, L Matejka, IR Titunik.1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language