Suixuan

标签：philosophy of science

Sun Xiaoli, editor: Philosophical Debates on Modern Science

Philosophy & Thought2006.01.27
Sun Xiaoli, editor: Philosophical Debates on Modern Science
Sun Xiaoli, ed.: *Philosophical Disputes in Modern Science*, 2nd ed., Beijing University Press, August 2003, (editor in charge: Su Xiangui~~, Gu Weiyu) Du XunSun Xiaoli: New Features of Modern Mathematics Pages 8–9 While mathematics was moving toward “specialization” and “complexification,” many ideas in the major disciplines were gradually becoming unified, and the boundaries among the major disciplines were becoming increasingly blurred. Therefore, although the content of mathematical science is immensely abundant and its scope enormous, the holistic conception of mathematics has reappeared, and workers in all kinds and branches of mathematical science have once again realized that they are engaged in a common undertaking. ////——This is good news. Liu Xiaoli:…
philosophy book reading notes philosophy of science
阅读全文

2006年1月27日
Why I Chose Philosophy of Science

Life & Notes2005.12.29
Why I Chose Philosophy of Science
This was also a topic discussed with ZW last night. Q: Why is philosophy of science, unlike philosophy of history, political philosophy, and so on, able to become an independent second-level discipline? A: The philosophy of science became an independent second-level discipline for both historical and contemporary reasons. The historical reason is that philosophy of science was originally what was called “dialectics of nature”; in that era, it was an attempt to provide methodological “guidance” for science, and this is an institutional arrangement left over from history. The contemporary reason is this: ours is precisely the age of so-called “science and technology”; almost all the problems this age faces—questions of…
history of science philosophy of science autobiography pluralism
阅读全文

2005年12月29日
Under the Same Starry Sky—Kant’s Views on Science and Religion

History of Science & Scholarship2005.12.26
Under the Same Starry Sky—Kant’s Views on Science and Religion
The Same Starry Sky—Kant’s View of Science and Religion: The Origins Xingding posted on 2005-12-26 14:48:15 Origins… 1 I have no choice but to suspend knowledge… 1 So as to make room for faith… 5 The limits of speculative reason… 5 The grounds of faith… 7 One must posit a God… 8 The meaning of the church… 9 On a clear night, gazing up at the starry sky… 10 Main references… 12 Origins Kant occupies a special position in the history of Western philosophy, bridging the past and the future. As the Japanese scholar Abe Yoshinari put it, “Kant is a reservoir: all philosophy before him flows into him, and…
science philosophy of science religion Kant
阅读全文

2005年12月26日
[U.S.] R. P. Feynman: “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”

History of Science & Scholarship2005.12.10
[U.S.] R. P. Feynman: “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”
[美]R·P·费曼：《发现的乐趣》，张郁乎/译，湖南科学技术出版社2005年 P143-144 ……Scientific knowledge is a kind of capacity: it can do good things, and it can do bad things. But it does not by itself tell people how to use this capacity; obviously, this capacity has value—though that value may perhaps be denied on account of what he does. On my trip to Honolulu, I learned a way of formulating this universal human problem. It was in a Buddhist temple there. The caretaker gave visitors a brief explanation of Buddhism. Then he told the audience that he had some words to say to them, and he wanted them never to forget these words—he ended his speech with them, and…
book reading notes philosophy of science scientific spirit
阅读全文

2005年12月10日
Science Has No Absolute Truth… But Is There Absolute Error? (And a Supplement)

History of Science & Scholarship2005.12.03
Science Has No Absolute Truth… But Is There Absolute Error? (And a Supplement)
Feynman points out: “Any scientific concept lies on some point along the scale between absolute error and absolute truth, and will not be at either end.”[①] It is easier for us to understand this: there is no absolutely correct scientific theory; but is there such a thing as absolute error? Should those scientific theories that have been “falsified” count as absolute errors? Why does Feynman say there are no absolute errors? Let us take an example of a scientific theory—“the geocentric theory.” Obviously, today the geocentric theory is widely recognized as an “incorrect” theory; but is this “incorrectness” absolute? In fact, before Copernicus, the geocentric theory had never had any…
science philosophy of science faith truth
阅读全文

2005年12月3日