Philosophy of Science: Science is About Solving Puzzles
I think that understanding the concept ‘paradigm’ and the nature of puzzle solving are two necessary conditions for understanding the concept ‘science’.
I suspect many fail to recognize that ‘science’ has the general meaning “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledgeâ€. ‘Science’ is generally a word used to denote the natural sciences or more likely technology in general.
Normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions†moves forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to anotherâ€. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.â€
Practitioners of normal science are expert puzzle-solvers. “One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving.â€
Practitioners of normal science have:
A paradigm that defines the theory, rules and standards of practice.
Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.
A criterion for choosing problems for solution.
Concrete problems for solution i.e. problems with solutions and only lack of ingenuity causes failure.
I suspect that it is a common mistake to think that natural sciences are so successful because of the creative faculties of the scientist rather than their ingenuity at puzzle solving. Kuhn and I think the success rests on the puzzle solving skills of the practitioners.
Ingenious—marked by especial aptitude at discovering, inventing, or contriving; marked by originality, resourcefulness, and cleverness in conception or execution
Creative—bring into existence, to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce through imaginative skill; to make or bring into existence something new.
Again, coberst, i find your topics very interesting. i’m having a hard time find a real or obvious difference between what you’ve listed below and the practice of philosophy. Sure, I can think of some differences…but they don’t amount to too much.
philosophy emphasizes dialogue and the love of wisdom. working with logic whether empirical or not. however, the debate about whether any topics (axioms/propositions) discussed in philosophy are ever utterly severed from empirical reality still rages. so to emphasize the difference between empiricism vs. purity probably doesn’t take us too far. Science deals with observed facts and physical reactions…but i believe philosophy does too. after, the physics is the first science text i know of and it was written by aristotle.
doesn’t sound too different from philosophy to me.
Science is “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of knowledgeâ€. This is a dictionary definition of the word ‘science’. Philosophy is a science therefore it fits the definition.
This post is not about philosophy however because philosophy does not have a paradigm. A science with a paradigm is a “normal science” as defined by Kuhn.
This post is about normal science and about the importance of puzzles and puzzle solving in normal science.
I tried to show this in the OP. Making this post on Kuhn and his explanation of ‘normal sience’ is my attempt to acquaint the reader with a very important concept, I think so anyway.
I do this in the hope that the reader will become curious and ask the question you have asked.
Now, the next step for the reader is to find a library that has this book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. Most college libraries have this book.
Most college libraries have a ‘Friend of the Library’ system that allows those who are not in the college to become, for a very small yearly fee, a friend of the library and thus borrow books from that library.
This, I hope, is the begining of a life long effort to search for and find answers to the type of question you have formulated.
you don’t solve any puzzle when you don’t know its creator, this is a fondamental truth before all the tecniks skills you enumerated that you learn by intuition to solve, any problem scene has the only solution with its extensions in the being that made it appear real, so if you don’t know him there is nothing you touch, misconceptions and perceptions dear to trevor come from this happening, human being will always look to the facts as if he made it when he ignore the truth that he didn’t because everything exist as a tool of a being need to make
i didn’t ask any question why are you commenting my post if it didn’t meant anything to your understanding are you making a joke of my talk colbert afandi? is this what turn you on you and your guys jesus you adore? make fun of a straight good heart who is not smart enough to your philosophical skills?
Errrrr… Iman, I either cannot understand completely or I have a very flimsy idea of what you mean to say in the posts you have made on this thread thus far… could you please rephrase or attempt to make yourself more clear? Seeing as how this is a forum it would make sense for you to want others to understand what you mean, dont you think that would make sense? Otherwise why would you post on it? Well… no offense, but I realy doubt any one on these forums will be able to understand most of what you have written…
if you really felt interested of something i said on this the least you would do is to react to the particular words you liked or disapprove or inspired you to know some more of how i see, rejecting the whole post i made with big effort of my extremely poor language you perform is showing that nothing had pass through you, so either you cannot stand my expression in shapes and depth i can do nothing to that this is what i am, either you are faking and here again there is no possible communication as i don’t know what are faking why and especially faking to that extend means to me that you don’t like my ways, so instead of ignoring you choose to play gams making fun of me in depth while you are convincing yourself wrongly that you are giving a chance to speak to whom you don’t like, this is absurd that i have to go that far to justify my sanity facing your wrong attitude towards me, when there is nothing to make positively, either you want to appear as teacher in thinking words in that case a teacher must be an example of clarity he is asking his student to make, either you want to be a student of my thoughts than you have to show respect of your teacher, either you want to be just another thinker friend which i hoped, but when you don’t show me any of your truth reaction to my thinking being all i receive is to be ridiculous
I am inclined to say that paradigms are anathema to philosophy. I have not given this much thought but I would guess that paradigms are contrary to the nature of philosophy.
Iman, it apears communication between us would be very tedious and difficult. I can barely make out the meaning of even just a few of your sentences. I understand now that English is a new language for you, so by no means am I writing this to offend you, but unfortunatly I do not have the time or the desire at this point to attempt to fully understand what you mean to say. I am sorry, though I do apreciate the fact that you are trying to get your points across in spite of this difficulty. And I am sure if you keep it up, in no time your English will be perfect. I wish you the best Iman
