Why is there no gap
between discovery and defense.
1.
Contrary to speculation, in reality, the discovery is not just a psychological
event, but at least part of the defense, or should be included in the defense.
Probability precedes
acceptability. Good reasons for probability will surely favour
acceptability.
There is no gap
between discovery and defense, and they are getting closer. Except for the
initial speculation -- speculation is still free from
scientific logic, probability and acceptability are
all analyzable. What supports the discovery of probability is also the defense
of probability, and therefore all true discoveries are the defense.
Try to describe the
historical evolution of the relationship between science and philosophy.
I.
Historical evolution
1.
In ancient times, natural philosophy was both the philosophy and science of its
time.
2.
After the modern scientific revolution, positive science became the leading
role of human knowledge independently from natural philosophy, and finally
formed a discipline different from philosophy.
3.
At the end of the 19th century, Mach put forward the "empirical standard
of meaning" with the aim of separating science and metaphysics. At the
beginning of the 20th century, the separation of science and philosophy,
positive evidence and philosophical speculation emerged.
4.
The differentiation of science and philosophy is the mainstream of modern
times, and scientization permeates all human
knowledge fields.
Two,
the relationship between science and philosophy currently roughly three
positions:
One
is that there are still distinct methods in philosophy that are different from
science; The second is that philosophy should be
"scientized" and become
"meta-science" or "thinking science". The third is to make
philosophy undertake modern problems and become philosophy in the original
sense.
How to look at the
relationship between presupposition and relativism?
1.
On the basic question of science and method, namely, the rationality of
science, two obviously opposite lines have been formed, one is presupposition
doctrine, the other is relativism. For now, one can
only hope to find a way out through some kind of complementarity between them.
2.
At one end, the presupposition establishes the rationality and its standards of
science a priori, while at the other end, the relativism excludes the
rationality and its standards. They reflect completely different positions on
the issue of rationality.
3.
In attacking presupposition, relativism sometimes negates scientific
rationality itself. It even went against the method.
4.
Complementary possibilities. There are two things about the rationality of
science. First, the standards for measuring science are constantly changing.
Second, science is indeed advancing. These two situations are obviously
mutually exclusive, each setting boundaries for the other, and thus making us
think about the possibilities of complementation.
Try to discuss
inductive method and deductive method and the relationship between them.
In
the scientific knowledge activities, the inductive method should be understood
as summarizing the facts obtained from experience, while the deductive method
should be understood as establishing the logically necessary knowledge system.
Inductive and
deductive methods are quite different from the point of view of the origin and
development of cognition. The inductive method is concerned with summarizing
and processing facts, and is always based on the results of observation and
experiment, while the deductive method is concerned with deriving a system of
judgments from some form of judgment as a principle, and the procedure of
derivation is entirely based on the rules of the logical system adopted.
In scientific
understanding, no method exhausts the essence of a thing. Induction and
deduction are complementary at the experiential and theoretical levels. There
is an element of deduction that runs through induction, and deduction depends
on the result of induction.
Try
to illustrate the transition between scientific facts, scientific laws and
scientific theories with examples.
The process of
knowledge production is also the logical sequence of the promotion of
scientific understanding: first scientific experiments provide scientific
facts, then scientific generalizations, and finally theoretical systems are
established. A scientific theory is a special system of statements. Normative
scientific theory forms a hierarchical and progressive linguistic structure:
facts, laws, theories. Starting from scientific fact (single proposition),
scientific law (full proposition) is advanced from scientific fact to
scientific law (full proposition) by inductive method, and then scientific law
is organized into scientific theory according to certain logical mode.
Try to describe the
relationship between speculation, hypothetical probability and theoretical
acceptability.
1.
In principle, the discovery focuses on the origin and creation of theoretical
hypotheses, which is subjective and only suitable for descriptive research. The
defense involves an evaluation test, biased objective. But in a real study,
only something that has been defended is a discovery, and discovery should be
included in the defense.
2.
The real difference is between the guess, the probability of the hypothesis,
and the acceptability of the theory.
Speculation
or initial thought is logically distinct from probable reasoning and
justification. Speculation is a typical subject of personal thinking, not
philosophy of science.
3.
Probability of a hypothesis means that there are good reasons to support a
hypothesis, but it has not been tested. Belongs to the
philosophy of science.
4.
The acceptability or confirmation of a theory is a defense.
5.
There is no gap between discovery and justification, only difference of degree,
probability and acceptability, but all true discovery
is justification. Therefore, only speculation is excluded from scientific
logic.
Try to describe how
to grasp and use opportunities consciously.
1.
Proactively increase the occurrence rate of opportunities. (1) Engage in practical
observations and experiments as much as possible, so that the disclosure of
unexpected information has sufficient conditions. (2) Don't be limited to
traditional steps, and consciously break through.
2.
Pay attention to cues and stay alert to the unexpected. You can't just be bound
by your own preconceptions.
3.
Be good at interpreting clues. Having the spirit of
inquiry and being able to explain is the most important and the most difficult.
4.
Have the courage to persevere.
