MASTER OF SCIENCE(LEARNING SCIENCES)

COHORT 5 INTAKE FEBRUARY 2014

REACTION PAPER 1
THE BORDERLANDS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND
PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION

MOHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ISMAIL (14030371)
MOHD SYUKUR BIN ABU BAKAR (14030370)
5 SEPTEMBER 2014




1.0 Philosophy of Science (What did you think about the basic concept?)
Normal science we know the term is synonymous with domain knowledge, knowledge of
exact sciences. But there are non-exact sciences domains that also require servings
scientifically to be able to explain social phenomena that cannot be described in exact
sciences. Thus it needs a clear definition of the conception of science that can be used both in
the realm of knowledge relevant to the exact sciences and non-exact sciences. But among
scientists themselves there is debate about the scientific concept of social knowledge domain.
Meanwhile, as a discipline, philosophy of science, has a close relationship to history of
science which is how the history of a growing knowledge; the sociology of knowledge, how
the social condition of the range of knowledge influence the development and the psychology
of research, which is how a scientist can develop perspective and interpretation of such
knowledge (Smith, 2000: 6). It seemly similar with the some others point in the Journal of
The Borderlands between science and philosophy: In introduction. We felt very interest to
react on the three important areas that highlight by Chalmers (1999). He refers those sci-
phi deals with three broad areas in inquiry:
a) Nature of science
b) Conceptual and methodological analysis of science
c) Science criticism
When we talk about science, it refers to religion, mystical and authoritarian. All of
these are in big concept of Epistemologies. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that
concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It was introduces by the Scottish
philosopher, James Frederick Ferries. It seemly related to the three broad areas in inquiry.
Religion said that faith-based on knowledge and cannot be falsified. Then, mystical is
referring to trust-based knowledge and can be undermined. While authoritarian is based on
experience-based knowledge and often change. I believed that when talk about science it
refer to all these aspects. It is because when I did the reading of several sources, science is
observational knowledge interpreted within the context of theory. A theory can be falsified, a
theory can be replaced with a better theory and a theory does not claim to be the truth. In the
process there are many philosophers of science, such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre
Lakatos and Larry Laudan. Each of them has a different view about what science is and how
the process of becoming a knowledge of science. Based on our understanding, Imre Lakatos
(1977), was not agree with the idea that introduced by Popper. Besides that, Kepler also agree
with the context of science that is more to the process of discovery that include on that were
the historical study and society.
2.0 How the philosophers of science further discuss on this concept?
In the debate of that, Karl Popper argued that there is no absolute truth in science. He
strongly agree with the method to obtain a deductive theory, in which the necessary
observations and experiments on an ongoing basis to test the hypothesis that deduction until
proven wrong, then the hypothesis is modified to obtain the correctness of test results based
on observations (Smith, 2000: 9). So from this it then acquired two interrelated points: first
that a theory cannot be said to be actually true and it can be blamed-can be falsified; and
second, that all knowledge is temporary, and each one is not entirely true (Smith, 2000: 11).
But subjectively, we can choose from some of the knowledge that we think is relevant.
Contrary to Popper, Thomas Kuhn actually believes that science cannot simply be
subject to criticism and falsification, because he put forward as the core paradigm of science.
Science is understood as a well-accepted paradigm, in which his own in view of Kuhn's
paradigm is a set of basic assumptions, or how to solve the problem (Smith, 2000: 13). To be
accepted, an assumption cannot simply become a widely accepted paradigm, but there is a
pre-paradigm obtained fairly random fact-gathering for later observed and applied as
accepted that it becomes normal science paradigm. Normal science itself at a certain time will
experience anomalies, due to the changing times that are no longer in accordance with the
existing paradigm, and Kuhn called it a crisis due to the competition of multiple paradigms
(Laudan, 1977: 370). The crisis then led to a paradigm that is more superior and empirically
correct than existing paradigm, which he calls a revolutionary science (Smith, 2000: 14).
From the scientific revolution later emerged a new period for normal science, which also will
experience the same cycle.
Kuhn considers the role of the history of a science (history of science) for the
development of science itself in the future. A series of basic assumptions which later became
a science in the past is a guide, guide, or a guide for the development of science in the present
and in the future. For Kuhn, to be able to distinguish the realm of science and non-science is
not based on falsification, but based on problem-solving activity using the existing paradigm
(Smith, 2000: 15).
Meanwhile there is Imre Lakatos who strives to be a mediator for the scientific
concept brought by Popper and Kuhn. Lakatos does not agree with Popper about
falsifications concept to distinguish where the science and not amenable to the idea, but its
scientific progress. On the other hand, Kuhn Lakatos rejected the concept of relativism, but
he agreed with the idea of how science has a certain groove changes (Lakatos, 1970 in Smith,
2000: 17). The concept brought by Lakatos of science is' scientific research programme or
scientific research program that includes a series of theory and method that can change at any
time. In a series of concepts, there is a basic assumption that the main idea that cannot be
changed, called the 'hard core', where the main idea is to support some hypothesis flexible
support can always questioned the truth (Smith, 2000: 18 ). So to be able to acquire a
scientific truth (and to be able to distinguish them from non-science), the scientific research is
needed, not just simply falsification or Bulk's acceptances of paradigm. The concept brought
by Lakatos be said to be more mature than the previous two concepts, because it enters the
realm of scientific research that is more rational. The initial concept of the research is
developed into a tradition of research (research tradition), which further become increasingly
complex because not only fixated on the purpose of justification an assumption but a test for
the overall points associated with that assumption.
Laudan defines tradition as the common assumption of research on a matter and
process in a scientific field, as well as the accuracy of the methods used to investigate the
problem and build theories in the field of science (Laudan, 1977: 374). Example is the theory
of empiricism and nominalism in philosophy, Marxism and capitalism in the economy, and
others. In addition to research, the other thing to be observed is the logic of discovery. Both
of these are in the spotlight of Kuhn and Popper debate. Where Kuhn looks to put forward the
importance of the discovery or invention of new things, the further it will lead to a new
paradigm will emerge. While Popper put any research to provide evidence for falsification of
a theory. So the similarities that can be drawn from them is both a method for a science to be
developed through any renewal theory advanced through a series of both discovery and
research process.
3.0 How we understand and conclude on all of that opinion?
The scientist only record what is directly observed with the five senses. Then, they
will construct the concept from the observations. They will interpret observations to arrive at
an unbiased conclusion. One might begin with the wrong law/theory but then they will
derivation back in several processes the proof the knowledge. Science just not observation
and state the theory. It takes various steps to proof the knowledge. Science is more too
deductive reasoning rather than inductive. It totally different because inductive just start with
observation,empirical generalizations and theory. But in deductive, it started with theory,
propositions, hypothesis (operationalism), observations and the last step is testing of
hypotheses. In science, they must follow the rules of operationalism, nominalism and value-
free knowledge.
The authors also conclude that in order to be able to answer what it is science and
how the implicit approach of the philosophy of science put forward by some scientists at the
top. In essence, science is a problem solving activity through the theories generated from
some existing approaches. Although in the end the science always changes through methods
that can identify these changes.

References:

Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? in Imre Lakatos and
Alan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 1-22

Laudan, Larry, 1977. From Theories to Research Tradition, California: University of
California Press, pp. 70-120

Popper, Karl. 1970. Normal Science and Its Danger, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave,
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51-
58
Smith, Peter K. 2000. Philosophy of Science and Its Relevance for the Social Sciences, in
Dawn Burton (ed.), Research Training for Social Scientists, London: Sage Publications,
pp. 4-20