Lots of scientific constructs began in philosophy. Logic became the basis for computer code, etc.
In order to spirit a construct away from philosophy and finalize its adoption by science, I’m thinking you need to do several things:
operationally define it
make it conform to current principles of scientific measurement (eg., many philosophy constructs are clearly discrete and either-or, and even dichotomous, whereas modern science generally prefers continuous variables)
position it within a pre-existing area of science–connect it theoretically to constructs already firmly held by science.
Can anyone elaborate on #3 above?
I’ve got a little problem I’m stuck on in a paper I’m writing.
If I understand corectly #3 is saying to categorize it with a science that already exsist for example geoligy, phisics, bioligy, chemistry.
I think it is some thing like that.
Don’t nuttin’ 'bout philosophy, but I know a bit about Science and BTW Karl Popper is my main man as far as philosophers are concerned. Anyway, I’m an experimentalist and I think, and as I read Popper he would agree, that to accomplish #3, the construct has to be in some way testable in the physical world. In other words, one should be able to devise an experiment in which the construct could be tested, then it becomes part of “Science”. It may not be possible to actually do the experiment, but that’s a fine point.
P.S. String theory is not Science, it’s a bunch of Mathematicians wanking, because it is not testable.
Use it, but use the whole quote. I was saying something about String Theory, not Science in general. Mathematics bears the same relation to science as musical notation does to music. One should not be mistaken for the other.
I’m thinking of the process which JUSTIFIES the experiment and which gives meaning to the outcome of such an experiment, should you choose to do it. It’s more at the argument stage.
Suppose you want to steal the concept of worldview from philosophy. You operationalize it, develop an instrument to measure it, and … CLAIM it belongs within the cognitive science concept of perspective, which refers to the position from which one senses, categorizes, measures or codifies experience. As such, (you continue) worldview is a fundamental part of each individual’s information processing mechanism.
There is an effort to steal from philosophy, and adopt by psychology.
This is the step I’d like to know more about–what is required, does the process/step have a name, what exactly happened in this adoption process?
In everyday operation, I think that #3 is typically half-moot. That is, the person doing the “spiriting” has already assumed that the philosophical, or even mathematical construct may be useful in some applied area of research, and is attempting to make #1/#3 happen by assuming #3 is true and that application of #2 will result in some satisfyingly convincing data. I doubt that people aribtrarily grab some philosophical entity and decide to apply it in science somehow; typically they are trying to find a tool that will help them explain or describe something already known to be “scientific”, such as the behavior of a falling object.
It’s also true that #s 1, 2, and 3 are not independent. That is, our intrepid researcher’s definitions, measurements, and positioning are dependent on one another.
For example, someone (reaching way back here, 20 years) won the Nobel prize for applying game theory to some social behavior, I forget what. His idea, his positioning, his experimental technique, data analysis, and conclusions would have all been dependent on one another.
