No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
The attention of scientists is now being drawn to a new branch of knowledge known as the “philosophy of science.” It is true, however, that philosophers of this country are not very happy about this word combination and often identify it with logical, positivism. Indeed, it would seem better to speak not of the philosophy, but of the logic of scientific development. Science has become an object of study, and there has emerged metascience, i.e., a science studying the logic of scientific structures. This field of knowledge cannot so far boast of generally accepted results. But it has done something else: new acute questions have been formulated and discussed fruitfully and originally. With this paper we are making an attempt to enter the discussion. The philosophy of science has not certainly taught scientists to discover the truth but it has indubitably increased their criticism towards their own activities, and this is really a very important accomplishment.
1 Susanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key, A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1951.
2 V. V. Nalimov and T. I. Golikova, Logicheskie osnovaniya planirovaniya experimenta (Logical Foundations of Experimental Design), Moscow, "Metal lurgiya," 1976.
3 M. G. Kendall, "Statistical Inference in the Light of the Theory of the Electronic Computer," Review of the International Statistical Institute, 34, n. 1, 1966, pp. 1-2.
4 Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York and London, Basic Books Publisher, 1963.
5 B. Russell, Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits, London, Allen and Unwin, 1956.
6 The ideas exposed in this paragraph were prompted by Yu. A. Schreider in discussing my report.
7 Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, and The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Hutchinson, 1965.
8 Criticism and Growth of Knowledge, ed. by. J Makatos and A. Musgrave. Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, 1965, Vol. 4, Cambridge University Press, 1970.
9 J. L. Mohod, "On the Molecular Theory of Evolution," in Problems of Scientific Revolution. Progress and Obstacles to Progress, The Herbert Spencer Lectures, 1973, ed. by R. Harré, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975, pp. 11-24.
10 Monod also points out the fact that Darwin's theory implicitly contained a concept of a discrete hereditary code, while Lamarck suggested continuous changeability.
11 T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
12 For greater details, see S. Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics, Am sterdam, North-Holland, 1952.
13 Popper, Conjectures and Refutations and "Some Comments on Truth and Growth of Knowledge," in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University Press, 1962, pp. 285-292.
14 The concept of exponential or logistic growth of the number of scientists, papers or funds for science is a glance at the same problem, but from a different angle. (See V. V. Nalimov and Z. M. Mul'chenko, Naukometriya (Scientometrics: The Study of Science Development as an Information Process), Moscow, "Nauka," 1969.
15 Criticism and Growth of Knowledge, and Monod, op. cit.
16 Criticism and Growth of Knowledge.
17 If this is ignored, immediately false paradoxes arise. As an example we shall give the paradox of Mises (as described by V. V. Tutubalin in Teoriya veroyatnostei [Probability Theory], Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1972): In the classical probability theory there is the definition: two events are called incompatible if they cannot occur simultaneously, and the theorem: the probability of the sum of two incompatible events equals the sum of their probabilities. R. Mises invented the following paradox: a tennis player can go to a contest either in Moscow or in London, the contests taking place simultaneously. The probability of his winning the first prize in Moscow is 0.9. (of course, if he goes there), in London is 0.6. What is the probability of his winning the first prize here or there? Solution: according to the classical theory, the two events are incompatible, and for this reason the probability in question is 0.9 + 0.6 = 1.5. This paradox is, as a matter of fact, a result of misunderstanding since the probabilities 0.9 and 0.6 relate to different spaces of elementary events.
18 V. V. Nalimov, "Novatorstvo kak proyavlenie intellektual'nogo bunta (In novation as a Manifestation of Intellectual Rebellion)," Izobretatel i ratsionalizator, 7, 1976, pp. 38-40.
19 V. V. Nalimov, "O nekotoroi paralleli mezhdu printsipom dopolnitel nosti Bora i metaforicheskoi strukturoi obydennogo yazyka (On a Parallel between Bohr's Principle of Complementarity and Metaphoric Structure of Everyday Lan guage)," in Printsip dopolnitel nosti i materialisticheskaya dialektika, Moscow, "Nauka," 1976.
20 We often hear that space research has allowed us to cognize the Moon. But remember that we say a man cognizes a woman when he has his first intimate contact with her. True, he learns a lot—but what he learns turns out to be a mystery more profound than what he faced before. To make love with a woman, a man must be mature. Humanity has by now matured to the point where it can directly contact the Moon, biological cells, genes, and elementary particles. But isn't it better. in this case as in the previous one. to speak of possession rather than cognition?
21 P. C. Mahalanobis, "The Foundations of Statistics," in Dialectica, 8, n. 2, 1954.
22 E. H. Hutten, The Language of Modern Physics, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, London, Allen and Unwin; New York, Macmillan, 1956.
23 Kamaleswar Bhaitacharya, "The Dialectical Method of Nagarjuana," Journal of Indian Philosophy, n. 3, 1, 1973.
24 S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, London, Allen and Unwin, 1948, pp. 656, 697-698.
25 The Upanishad of the Va'yassane'ya Sanhita, Calcutta, Upanishads, 1853.
26 Criticism and Growth of Knowledge.
You have
Access