Laws of Nature

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Law Of Nature ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Universe

The concept of a law of nature, while familiar, is deeply puzzling. Theorists such as Descartes think a divine being governs the universe according to the laws which follow from that being’s own nature. Newton detaches the concept from theology and is agnostic about the ontology underlying the laws of nature. Some later philosophers treat laws as summaries of events or tools for understanding and explanation, or identify the laws with principles and equations fundamental to scientific theories. In the first part of this volume, essays from leading historians of philosophy identify central questions: are laws independent of the things they govern, or do they emanate from the powers of bodies? Are the laws responsible for the patterns we see in nature, or should they be collapsed into those patterns? In the second part, contributors at the forefront of current debate evaluate the role of laws in contemporary Best System, perspectival, Kantian, and powers- or mechanisms-based approaches. These essays take up pressing questions about whether the laws of nature can be consistent with contingency, whether laws are based on the invariants of scientific theories, and how to deal with exceptions to laws. These twelve essays, published here for the first time, will be required reading for anyone interested in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and the histories of these disciplines.

Malebranche, Nicolas (1638–1715)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Nadler
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Nicolas Malebranche ◽  
Nature And Grace ◽  
The World ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Mental Events ◽  
The Universe

Nicolas Malebranche, a French Catholic theologian, was the most important Cartesian philosopher of the second half of the seventeenth century. His philosophical system was a grand synthesis of the thought of his two intellectual mentors: Augustine and Descartes. His most important work, De la recherche de la vérité (The Search After Truth), is a wide-ranging opus that covers various topics in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, physics, the physiology of cognition, and philosophical theology. It was both admired and criticized by many of the most celebrated thinkers of the period (including Leibniz, Arnauld and Locke), and was the focus of several fierce and time-consuming public debates. Malebranche’s philosophical reputation rests mainly on three doctrines. Occasionalism – of which he is the most systematic and famous exponent – is a theory of causation according to which God is the only genuine causal agent in the universe; all physical and mental events in nature are merely ‘occasions’ for God to exercise his necessarily efficacious power. In the doctrine known as ‘vision in God’, Malebranche argues that the representational ideas that function in human knowledge and perception are, in fact, the ideas in God’s understanding, the eternal archetypes or essences of things. And in his theodicy, Malebranche justifies God’s ways and explains the existence of evil and sin in the world by appealing to the simplicity and universality of the laws of nature and grace that God has established and is compelled to follow. In all three doctrines, Malebranche’s overwhelming concern is to demonstrate the essential and active role of God in every aspect – material, cognitive and moral – of the universe.

scholarly journals Pemikiran Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) tentang Metodologi Program Riset dan Signifikansinya dalam Kajian Keislaman

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Ahmad Amir Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Islamic Studies ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
The One ◽  
Protective Belt ◽  
Do So

Apart from Kuhn and Popper, Lakatos has become an important figure in the<br />field of Philosophy of Science for his scientific theories, which he calls research<br />programmes. For Lakatos, Popper’s theoretical falsification can be immensely dangerous<br />when applied to the already established theories. On the other hand, in contrast to Kuhn<br />who assumed that a paradigm is by its nature immeasurable, Lakatos maintains that the<br />competing scientific discoveries may in fact be compared between one another. To him,<br />the main issues with regard to the logic of discovery cannot be dealt with satisfactorily<br />unless we do so within the framework of research programmes. The practical<br />implementation of this would be that the hard core of this framework cannot be subjected<br />to modification -let alone- rejection. This hard core must in other words be protected<br />from what he terms falsification. Lakatos also maintains that what can be said as scientific<br />is a series of theory, and not a single theory. This model of research programmes can in<br />fact be used in Islamic Studies in order to develop new theoretical principles that may<br />play a role of convincing protective-belt on the one hand, and to find new premises<br />whose discoveries can be used universally on the other

scholarly journals Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 786-799
Author(s):  
Markus I. Eronen ◽  
Jan-Willem Romeijn
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Psychological Theory ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Recent Theory ◽  
The Past ◽  
Conceptual Work

One of the original aims of this journal was to promote theory in psychology. Nowadays more and more psychological researchers are calling for more theory development, and articles on the “theory crisis” have also found their way into mainstream journals. In this article, we provide a further perspective to this theory debate. Over the past century, philosophy of science has staged extensive discussions on the mathematization of nature and on the role of mathematics in the development of theory and the connection of theory to empirical facts. We show that these discussions are highly relevant for the current debate in psychology. In particular, we emphasize the importance of conceptual work in the process of mathematization, and the role of mathematics in co-ordinating theory and observations. We then discuss the implications that these points have for statistically oriented psychology in general and for the recent theory debate in psychology.

A Clinical Science

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Psychoanalytic Theory ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Case Study Method ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Relief Of Suffering

Adolf Grünbaurn’s criticisms of psychoanalytic theory are the most sustained and powerful effort in our time to make the philosophy of science useful, useful in the pursuit of theories and evidence and useful in the relief of suffering. His work shows, I think, that some important claims that psychoanalytic theory has achieved certain scientific goals at best express unjustified hopes. These failures will not discourage those who think that the goals of the human sciences are radically different from those of the natural sciences. But, like Professor Griinbaum (and, as he has shown, in rich detail, like Freud), I don’t think there is a relevant difference, here. Psychoanalytic theory, like any field of science, strives for at least approximately true descriptions of causes, that are justified in light of the data.Still, I think that there is a core of psychoanalytic theory that is empirically justified. Moreover, most (though not quite all) people whose theoretical commitments are psychoanalytic are now fully committed to no more than this core. In responding to his paper, ‘The Role of the Case Study Method in the Foundations of Psychoanalysis,’ I’ll start by sketching this core, indicating why I take it to embody the same scientific goals as familiar, well-justified natural-scientific theories. My view of the goals of theorizing is so basic to my failure to be converted by Professor Griinbaum that this prelude will be the longest part of my comments. If it turns out that he doesn’t want to convert someone with this kind of theory, i.e., that these claims for psychoanalysis are acceptable to him - that will itself be significant as clarifying the aims of his important work.

Malebranche, Nicolas (1638–1715)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Nadler
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Nicolas Malebranche ◽  
Nature And Grace ◽  
The World ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Mental Events ◽  
The Universe

Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715), a French Catholic theologian, was the most important Cartesian philosopher of the second half of the seventeenth century. His philosophical system was a grand synthesis of the thought of his two intellectual mentors: Augustine and Descartes. His most important work, De la recherche de la vérité (The Search After Truth), is a wide-ranging opus that covers various topics in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, physics, the physiology of cognition, and philosophical theology. It was both admired and criticized by many of the most celebrated thinkers of the period (including Leibniz, Arnauld and Locke), and was the focus of several fierce and time-consuming public debates. Malebranche’s philosophical reputation rests mainly on three doctrines. Occasionalism – of which he is the most systematic and famous exponent – is a theory of causation according to which God is the only genuine causal agent in the universe; all physical and mental events in nature are merely ‘occasions’ for God to exercise his necessarily efficacious power. In the doctrine known as ‘vision in God’, Malebranche argues that the representational ideas that function in human knowledge and perception are, in fact, the ideas in God’s understanding, the eternal archetypes or essences of things. And in his theodicy, Malebranche justifies God’s ways and explains the existence of evil and sin in the world by appealing to the simplicity and universality of the laws of nature and grace that God has established and is compelled to follow. In all three doctrines, Malebranche’s overwhelming concern is to demonstrate the essential and active role of God in every aspect – material, cognitive and moral – of the universe.

scholarly journals Photon leaking or very hard ionizing radiation? Unveiling the nature of He II-emitters using the softness diagram

2020 ◽  
Vol 643 ◽  
pp. A80
Author(s):  
E. Pérez-Montero ◽  
C. Kehrig ◽  
J. M. Vílchez ◽  
R. García-Benito ◽  
S. Duarte Puertas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Black Body ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Photon Absorption ◽  
Model Cluster ◽  
Star Forming ◽  
Metal Free ◽  
Absolute Scale ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Universe

Aims. Star-forming galaxies with nebular He II emission contain very energetic ionizing sources of radiation, which can be considered as analogs to the major contributors of the reionization of the Universe in early epochs. It is therefore of great importance to provide a reliable absolute scale for the equivalent effective temperature (T*) for these sources. Methods. We study a sample of local (z <  0.2) star-forming galaxies showing optical nebular He II emission using the so-called softness diagrams, involving emission lines of two elements in two consecutive stages of ionization (e.g., [S II]/[S III] vs. [O II]/[O III]). We use for the first time the He I/He II ratio in these diagrams in order to explore the higher range of T* expected in these objects, and to investigate the role of possible mechanisms driving the distribution of galaxy points in these diagrams. We build grids of photoionization models covering different black-body temperatures, model cluster atmospheres, and density-bounded geometries to explain the conditions observed in the sample. Results. We verified that the use of the softness diagrams including the emission-line ratio He I/He II combined with black-body photoionization models can provide an absolute scale of T* for these objects. The application of a Bayesian-like code indicates T* in the range 50−80 kK for the sample of galaxies, with a mean value higher than 60 kK. The average of these high temperature values can only be reproduced using cluster model populations with nearly metal-free stars, although such ionizing sources cannot explain either the highest T* values, beyond 1σ, or the dispersion observed in the softness diagrams. According to our photoionization models, most sample galaxies could be affected to some extent by ionizing photon leaking, presenting a mean photon absorption fraction of 26% or higher depending on the metallicity assumed for the ionizing cluster. The entire range of He I/He II, [S II]/[S III], and [O II]/[O III] ratios for these HeII-emitting galaxies is reproduced with our models, combining nearly metal-free ionizing clusters and photon leaking under different density-bounded conditions.

Psychological Resilience Provides No Independent Protection From Suicidal Risk

Crisis ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danica W. Y. Liu ◽  
A. Kate Fairweather-Schmidt ◽  
Richard Burns ◽  
Rachel M. Roberts ◽  
Kaarin J. Anstey
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Life Project ◽  
Resilience Factors ◽  
First Time

Abstract. Background: Little is known about the role of resilience in the likelihood of suicidal ideation (SI) over time. Aims: We examined the association between resilience and SI in a young-adult cohort over 4 years. Our objectives were to determine whether resilience was associated with SI at follow-up or, conversely, whether SI was associated with lowered resilience at follow-up. Method: Participants were selected from the Personality and Total Health (PATH) Through Life Project from Canberra and Queanbeyan, Australia, aged 28–32 years at the first time point and 32–36 at the second. Multinomial, linear, and binary regression analyses explored the association between resilience and SI over two time points. Models were adjusted for suicidality risk factors. Results: While unadjusted analyses identified associations between resilience and SI, these effects were fully explained by the inclusion of other suicidality risk factors. Conclusion: Despite strong cross-sectional associations, resilience and SI appear to be unrelated in a longitudinal context, once risk/resilience factors are controlled for. As independent indicators of psychological well-being, suicidality and resilience are essential if current status is to be captured. However, the addition of other factors (e.g., support, mastery) makes this association tenuous. Consequently, resilience per se may not be protective of SI.

The Modern Aristotle: Michael Polanyi’s Search for Truth against Nihilism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Hoinski ◽  
Ronald Polansky
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Michael Polanyi ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
The Face ◽  
Human Desire ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Theoretical Science

David Hoinski and Ronald Polansky’s “The Modern Aristotle: Michael Polanyi’s Search for Truth against Nihilism” shows how the general tendencies of contemporary philosophy of science disclose a return to the Aristotelian emphasis on both the formation of dispositions to know and the role of the mind in theoretical science. Focusing on a comparison of Michael Polanyi and Aristotle, Hoinski and Polansky investigate to what degree Aristotelian thought retains its purchase on reality in the face of the changes wrought by modern science. Polanyi’s approach relies on several Aristotelian assumptions, including the naturalness of the human desire to know, the institutional and personal basis for the accumulation of knowledge, and the endorsement of realism against objectivism. Hoinski and Polansky emphasize the promise of Polanyi’s neo-Aristotelian framework, which argues that science is won through reflection on reality.

Science and Dialectics in the Philosophies of Deleuze, Bachelard and DeLanda

Paragraph ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Williams
Keyword(s):  
Gilles Deleuze ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Gaston Bachelard ◽  
Contemporary Science

This article charts differences between Gilles Deleuze's and Gaston Bachelard's philosophies of science in order to reflect on different readings of the role of science in Deleuze's philosophy, in particular in relation to Manuel DeLanda's interpretation of Deleuze's work. The questions considered are: Why do Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard develop radically different philosophical dialectics in relation to science? What is the significance of this difference for current approaches to Deleuze and science, most notably as developed by Manuel DeLanda? It is argued that, despite its great explanatory power, DeLanda's association of Deleuze with a particular set of contemporary scientific theories does not allow for the ontological openness and for the metaphysical sources of Deleuze's work. The argument turns on whether terms such as ‘intensity’ can be given predominantly scientific definitions or whether metaphysical definitions are more consistent with a sceptical relation of philosophy to contemporary science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document