8,921
edits
Changes
→Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn
==Edited vandalism==
[[user:CharlesDarwin|CharlesDarwin]] decided to vandalize this page. I have undone his work to the previous page.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 19:04, May 4, 2008 (UTC)
OK. Now I've done it. I added a link to my own article on the subject. If there's an issue here, let me know and I'll deep-six it. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 17:24, March 14, 2006 (CST)
There may be no "dogmatic" discussion but based on the following story it does have a major spiritual effect. Some saints are given the gift of telling sins through smell. Once Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain met a man who had a unknown stench (meaning that He did not know what sin caused it). So he told the man that he should go to confession. It turned out that the stench was cause by the mans belief in evolution. Ssmith165, September 10, 2006
== The Enlightenment? ==
I deleted the reference to the Enlightenment. Modern science is generally dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, while the Enlightenment is 18th century. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:16, October 16, 2008 (UTC)
== Philosophy of Science: Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn==
Simply by way of "[[w:Quantification|quantifying]]" the theory of evolution, from the scientific side, I wanted to mention a centrally important quotation by '''[[w:Karl Popper|Sir Karl Popper]]''', widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, who stated that:
:"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a '''[[w:Metaphysics|metaphysical]]''' research program."
In other words, in the research phase at any rate, it functions just like its own "belief system". See the Wikipedia article discussion of this here: [[w:Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism|Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism]]/
Similarly, it is also very interesting that back in 1962, philosopher and historian of science '''[[w:Thomas Kuhn|Thomas Kuhn]]''' published the landmark study in the sociology of knowledge, called ''"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",'' popularizing the terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift"; in this study, Kuhn sought to debunk the conception of '''cumulative scientific development as a myth'''. Since the Western Enlightenment, some scientists had advocated that ''if they had made great scientific discoveries, it was only because they had "stood on the shoulders of giants before them",'' adding to their work. Kuhn however, pointed out that this was bogus, and that new discoveries constantly obliterated what we THOUGHT we knew beforehand, replacing it with an entirely new set of reference points.
Not sure if mentioning these two scientific philosphers has any place in this article, but both of them have made very honest and valid observations surrounding the ''Basic Terms and Definitions'' of this subject (from the theory of evolution/scientific side), which should be defined and understood as a precedent to any meaningful discussion phase. At any rate, just sharing. :)
Cheers,
[[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 21:13, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
:This OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith.
:Kuhn and Popper are not, properly, "scientific philosophers," but "philosophers of science": they philosophize about "philosophy of science," a field which determines the boundaries and subject matter of science. Kuhn and Popper are certainly vitally important to understanding the current state of the field of philosophy of science, but neither are definitive voices (''i.e.'', the "last word") on the subject. Popper's statement would need to be understood within the fullness of his argument, whatever it is. Is it a conclusion? A premise in a larger argument? Both? Whatever its context, it cannot stand on its own simply on the basis of his authority, because it begs the question. It states as a declaration (assumes as solved) the very thing under consideration.
:You are absolutely correct: Understanding their thought is vitally important to understanding whether the current state of evolutionary theory counts as science (what Wolshchak has facetiously called "post-post-neo-Darwinism," meaning the label "Darwinism" ''per se'' is no longer applicable).
:However, this OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith; it is not about the scientific validity of the dominant scientific theory. The latter should be argued in another forum, one on the subject of "boundary issues" in philosophy of science. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 14:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
::Many Thanks Basil. You hit the nail on the head twice here, in identifying the main task and purpose involved:
::# "whether the current state of evolutionary theory counts as science"; and
::# stating that "This OrthodoxWiki article is about whether the dominant scientific theory of biological origins is compatible with Orthodox faith".
::Provides excellent clarity and focus, and a clear base to go forward from. Archbishop Hilarion recently made an important statement in this regard, in: ''[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6584JX20100609?feedType=RSS&feedName=lifestyleMolt Russia Church wants end to Darwin school "monopoly"], REUTERS, Wed Jun 9, 2010 3:44pm EDT'':
:::''"The time has come for the monopoly of Darwinism and the deceptive idea that science in general contradicts religion. These ideas should be left in the past," senior Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion said at a lecture in Moscow.''
:::''"Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."''
::(Aside): I will also note something I heard from a recent Bible Study from the Orthodox Proto-Presbyter conducting the session, that historically, the "sciences" were not divorced from "theology", as they are today; and this divorce is a very recent phenomenon. As late as the 19th century, he mentioned as an example, that St Theophan the Recluse was in possession of the most advanced telescope in his day, as well as having an entire library of philosophical/scientific?? books. In addition, the first several books/chapters of one of St Gregory Palamas' writings is completely devoted to science. The fathers used the Sciences and Greek Philosophy as tools, however the difference is, that ''it was ONLY with proper Orthodox theology that God could be approached''. The divorce of the sciences & philosophy from theology is a recent phenomenon, and as a result, mankind today is actually far less intellectually capable than even a hundred years ago, putting us as a society and civilization in a very precarious and dangerous state. Incidentally the text we had originally began to discuss was from 1 Corinthians 1:23 "..but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..".
::In relation to this theme of a post-literate society, there is an interesting book on current affairs that has been sold out for quite some time in many stores, written by former New York Times War Correspondent Chris Hedges, called: ''"Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle."'', which considers some interesting and disturbing themes if true.
::Cheers, [[User:Angellight 888|Angellight 888]] 23:54, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
