| , Research Paper
An Analysis of the Philosophy of Science
In my analysis of the philosophy of science, I will attempt to give an analysis of Aristotle?s demonstration and scientific knowledge starting points and how they apply to his theory, his definition in sciences, and scientific enquires of the various questions posted as well as his ideals of explanation, which gives clear ideal of his theory points in his premises.
Aristotle starting points of sciences are definitions, existence proposition and general logical truth, which can only be grasped and not demonstrated. They are not verbal but give inner or essential nature of natural kinds, pertaining to the science. From these stating points one may deduce valid syllogisms with further characteristics that necessarily have virtue of essential value, in comparation to Euclid?s geometry who?s starting points are definitions, postulates and common principles. Aristotle starting points, which is the axioms- the demonstrated truths are its propositions that have been proven. In order to acquire such a scientific knowledge of theorems demonstration must infers its validility from premises, which are true, necessary and unspurious. We think we possess we scientific knowledge, when we assume knowledge of the causes. This is not possible, because having scientific knowledge is being in this condition, and those who think they have this knowledge are not, but those who do really are. Which follows that anything of scientific knowledge cannot be otherwise. Nous (starting -points which are themselves knowable) grasps indemontratible starting points. Therefore, if scientific knowledge is what we say it is then demonstrative knowledge depends on premises of truth, which are primitive and immediate. The conclusion must give the true reasons of facts mentioned. Aristotle example of this is the nearness of the planets and why they do not twinkle. He argues that the starting points of demonstration are necessary because they are truth and demonstration knowledge comes from necessary starting points.
Deductive starting points cannot be proven and do not have to be grasped ? these are called posits. A posit assumes that something is or something is not, a supposition; without assumption it is a definition. He is insistent in the usage of appropriate premises and methods of questions under discussuion, being that one cannot give proof by crossing over from another kind. Aristotle requirements for the premises of demonstrations have unwelcome consequences, because scientific laws alone gives no hope of the full explanation of individual events, being that any full explanation must include facts about environment and preceding conditions.
Aristotle scientific enquiry proceeds that things in which we seek are those we know, which are the ?that?, the ?why?, whether something is, and what is. If knowing a proposition that is demonstrated involves knowing the demonstration of it then obviously we must then distinguish two types of knowledge ? ?weak knowledge? the enquiry, and ? strong knowledge?, the discovery. Which gives confidence that some proposition is scientifically explicable. The important point being that at any given stage in scientific progress of laws and connections have provided the framework, which are guidelines to determine some newly observed conjunction of events is law-governed. Aristotle?s ideal of explanations leaves us to make such additions and qualifications that are necessary to accommodate other essentials qualities of his theory. It seems unlikely to assume that such departures occur and such masses exits in the in demonstration starting points of science.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to suggest that science is a matter of explanation, because science is also reasons derived from knowledge. It is not only concerned with good, but also with what is necessary. Science need starting points which must be demonstrated in order to provide proven theories. Nevertheless Aristotle is still venerated in the conscientious role he has played in defining scientific definition in theory, providing us with many of those starting points. He is still accredited today for many of his important ideas and concepts, which has generalized theories of sciences.
|