what is this?
Respondents how many duck and rabbit?
The perceived object is processed by mind that assigns a fixed meaning. but the meaning in this case It is not unique. The observation is not the only factor that identifies the’ represented object.
An idea shared by many epistemology '900 is that there are no comments as well. Each observation is guided by theory: It is always the 'uomo choosing how to "cut" the world.
In case the choice of the design could be influenced by psychological components. I like rabbits, I see a rabbit. Does someone else have a duck inside home, choose the duck. Or the decision could depend on the crossing point of the gaze initially.
In science It is the theoretical conception that determines the way I look. The idea I have of world of world, influence the way I see the world. In other words, observations are always laden with theory.
When you look at something, about mind It is active. The substrate with which we approach the theoretical observation affect this.
Wittgenstein, that initially had elevated logic an activity able to represent objectively the world, in the second phase of his thought he will affirm that every human activity has validity contextual. In Philosophical Research, Wittegenstein abandons the idea of existentialist language, and therefore of the logic (In Tractatus Logico Philosophicus there was a strong correlation between logic is language [ref The limits of language]). The language It is an open-ended set of Games Language, unsystematic and not universal. The phrases of language not have an absolute sense (do not express the essence of things), but buy meaning unless it is integrated into a "form of lifeʱ?? (part of anthropological processes based on the common interests of a group of speakers).
So the talk a language It is part of an asset, a form of life. Every human activity has its own "language games", It has its own rules, his words its technicalities.
There are also observations and language osservativo neutral. The meanings of the terms are related to the same language games of words common use of the chains through linguistic (meaning-denotation-way) Similar to that of Frege.
Science is the result of a form of life and it is one of the many language games.
These considerations, taken to the extreme, lead to consider science as one of many "products" of human civilization. Science would lose its rigor and its objective validity and universal. The comments are full of theory and the nature of the result, It depends on the particular culture or "form of life"Making the observation. Therefore the form of life "Modern science" can be considered as one among many forms of life and it is permissible to subject it to the scrutiny of other disciplines, such as anthropology and sociology.
Let's step back: how it develops science? According To Karl Popper It is a succession of trials and errors. The know scientific undergoes continuous transformations, that allow the progress, the overcoming of wrong theories and the affirmation of the right ones.
Per Popper about science dialectical flow is continuous truth and falsehood, of zero and one.
Deep cracks, crucial experiments, falsification, corroboration: as we have seen in Epistemology these are the key terms of his thought.
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), epistemologist US, accusation Popper to have a vision ahistorical science. Science second Kuhn (reference text "The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsʱ??), It does not develop in a series of breaks and reversals theorists, but it passes several stages. In phase defined Paradigamatica science has a normal course, while the revolutions (the substantial changes analyzed by Popper) take place in the phase of "revolutionary scienceʱ??. The bridge connecting the two phases is the emergence of anomalies during the development of science paradigm.
In summary we:
The paradigma per Kuhn It is defined as the set of laws, theories,Applications, instruments of a certain scientific culture.
Aristotelian physics and Newtonian mechanics are two paradigms separated by a revolution. As well as the Relativity Einstein will lead to another revolution.
For most of the time science has a normal course. Those revolutions (that Popper It seemed to bind to normal evolution Scientific) hanno luogo solo in rari momenti della history Science.
Remember falsificationism, of which we have spoken several times. Per Popper the demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science it has the opportunity to submit to the falsification scientific statements. Which it is instead the criterion of demarcation for Kuhn?
The presence of traditional solution to puzzle. The puzzles that the scientist is to resolve to give science its peculiarities. The theories are not replaced only controls failed, but may be overtaken by best theoretical solutions: solve the problem better.