We seek to deepen the analysis of someepistemological problems introduced in the post Philosophy of Science . We start from the model Popper, trying to locate the points force and the most fragile parts of its epistemology.
We said that the criterion of methodological Popper It is not of significance, but only methodological. The purpose of its epistemology It is to find a rational approach to "produce" know scientific, establishing once and for all a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience feature meaning, but should not be confused with the know scientific. Da who Popper reassesses the same metaphysics, arguing that it too can be determinant for the development of science.
We think about the concept of action at a distance of Newtonian physics. It comes as a correlation "metaphysical" between two bodies, apparently not interacting. The theory of universal gravitation states that the action is propagated regardless of the distance and in the absence of matter mediator. Newton was forced to admit, was respected so that the conservation of momentum, that the action (contrary to what we know today) It is propagated instantaneously and then at infinite speed.
A first function of metaphysics can be to "plug" the gaps which inevitably break when new theories are afloat. Especially when these theories are part of the basic sciences and realize a substantial amount of phenomena. In terms could not very technical be definite: basic theory unifying.
Consider another example: the model of knowledge of philosophy Platonic.
Without postulating the existence of innate ideas and of metempsychosis, the theory of knowledge Greek would be stranded in the swamp of skepticism or would fall into the cage dell'erismo.
"I understand what you mean, the Menone. Look argument eristic Adduci: which it is not possible for the 'uomo research or what he knows or what he does not know! Indeed, nor could try what he knows because he already knows, and around this is not to be sought, or what you do not know, because in that case, He does not know what to look for " Plato – Menon [81 A]
The Reminiscenza, in philosophy Platonic, is the theory that the knowledge It is to remember the ideas covered by’soul nell’iperuranio (the world ideas) before incarnating in the body. The idea, which are the only source of knowledge (for some Plato ), They are located in a world supersensible that can be clearly observed only by pure souls, while it is possible for mortal souls, through reminiscence, remember what they saw before reincarnating. it's not important, in this context, assess the correctness of this theory (even if, today again, I would challenge anyone to give a definitive answer to question: "How can we create new knowledge?ʱ??), but only to point out that without this theory, probably, the advancement of knowledge in world Western would have been different from that which led us to the era of technology.
And 'sufficient to note the difference between the development of knowledge of Western and Eastern civilizations some who consciously laid the foundations of philosophy of a metaphysical "skeptical", where external knowledge is, to put it Augustinians, idle curiosity.
The problem of metaphysics, in contrast to what was thought Wittgenstein, not resolved dissolving, but absorbing.
IS’ Interestingly, the term epistemology, which it was created to indicate the branch of philosophy which he deals with the science, often it is also used to denote the theory of knowledge. This underscores how knowledge, in world current, It is inextricably linked to scientific.
The other key aspect of’epistemology is that of the demarcation between science and not science. The boundary line, we said, It is drawn from falsification: the possibility of falsifying a theory in a definitive manner. The difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientific theories can be denials cleanly observation. What already called Bacon l cross test It is an observation that can validate or disprove a theory permanently.
But there is this type of experiment? An empirical test that can definitively refute a theory or a specific part of it?
Duhem (1861 –1916) anticipated a criticism all’epistemology of Popper. the poor Popper had only 3 years (1906) ed, still unaware of his future career philosophical, already he had to struggle with a criticism his theory. Duhem criticism l'innocent hope that the truth can be resolved in the head or croceʱ??. Requiring a single experiment the real monsters, It appears logically unfounded. He shows that if the predicted phenomenon is not produced not only challenged the proposition to be questioned, but all the theoretical apparatus that sustains: there are no crucial experiments falsifying.