On Science and Philosophy

Author: Claus D. Volko

Basically I agree with Karl Popper's notion of the logic of scientific discovery: science is all about testing hypotheses. It is the scientist's job to try to disprove hypotheses. On the other hand, what should the process of coming up with hypotheses be called? In my opinion, it should be called: philosophy. The person who invents hypotheses is a philosopher.

When you do a PhD, your task is to investigate hypotheses assigned to you by your supervisor. A PhD programme is supposed to train you as a scientist. The scientist is the one who tests the hypotheses. It is possible that there is a personal union of the one who comes up with the hypothesis and the one who tests it. But usually this is not the case, as the same hypothesis is often tested by several scientists.

The philosopher is the person who comes up with new hypotheses. That is why the journal "Medical Hypotheses" is actually not a scientific but a philosophical journal. A scientific journal is a journal that publishes results of scientific investigations, of testing hypotheses.

My "symbiont conversion theory" is a hypothesis that has already been tested a couple of times and so far has not been disproven; that is why I called it a "theory". However, I have not tested it. I have just come up with it. That means that I am a philosopher, not a scientist.

Philosophy and Science have to work together to come closer to the truth. The philosopher invents the hypothesis, the scientist tests it. If the same person comes up with the hypothesis and tests it, that is perfectly fine; in that case, the person is a philosopher and a scientist at the same time. But usually these two roles are separated. It is a kind of epistemologic division of labor.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Proof that Every Grammar for English has Self-Embedding to an Unbounded Depth

Authors: Daniel Pohl, Iakovos Koukas, Noam Chomsky Introduction The distinction between competence and performance has played a foundational role in the philosophy of linguistics. Competence is a grasp of the structural properties of all the sentences of a language. Performance involves actual real-time use and may diverge from the underlying competence. Idealizing away from psycholinguistically relevant factors like limits on memory and processing plays a significant role in various essential debates within the field of linguistics. Perhaps the most central and famous is the issue of whether English is a finite-state language. This article provides a proof of the relevant theorem, originally from Chomsky 1959. The claim that any finite-state automaton does not accept English is supported by showing that every grammar for English has self-embedding to an unbounded depth. Self-Embedding The economical production forms for context-free languages, especially the Chomsky normal-for
Read more

Symbiont Conversion Theory

Abstract Symbiont Conversion Theory is a new scientific theory, summarizing and generalizing efforts that have been made by various researchers in the past years; it could even be perceived as a new scientific paradigm. This theory states that microorganisms and cells which are commonly considered to display parasitic behaviour can be "educated" and transformed into symbionts. This is not just a hypothesis but a theory since there is already evidence that proves that this is possible. The primary motivation for developing this theory is the failure of classical approaches to therapy of cancer and infectious diseases that follow the paradigm "destroy and kill". It is common knowledge about medical doctors that chemotherapy and radiation therapy have detrimental side effects on healthy, functional tissue, and also that antibiotics can harm benevolent cells. These negative side effects can possibly be avoided by the new approach of treating parasitic diseases by conver
Read more

Optimal IQ: A Speculative Model

Image
How we profit from IQ is frequently talked about in IQ societies. And the foregone conclusion: the higher the better . However, turns out there’s a cost associated with higher IQ, one put forth in a recent paper[1] indicating the good of high intelligence; more opportunities, higher self–awareness, etc and the more elusive bad or dark side to higher IQ; imbalances (mental and physical), debilitation, etc. In other words, there is a cost associated with IQ increase beyond some as yet, unknown value. Now, optimality, as we all know, is not necessarily being on top of the heap or at a maximum. Take an aspirin, it will get rid of a headache. Take a bottle of aspirin and you’ll be in the ER getting your stomach pumped. Even money— turns out you don’t want to make too much —has an optimal value being about $95,000.00 US dollars per year in the long run, that is, if one wants to be happy— optimally of course. Too, to determine optimality, as we all have learned, requires in the simplest sense
Read more