Understanding the basic definition of Natural Sciences
Understanding the basic natural Sciences is a discipline that is usually studied at the college level. Basically you've got these disciplines in both the elementary, junior and senior high school. The difference, IAD talk more about how the methods of science faulty world view in explaining natural phenomena in a more philosophical.
If you study the philosophy of science faulty world view, you will meet with various schools of thought in natural science. For example: Realism, Anti-Realist, relativism, and feminism Sci.
In it all, you will find contradictions between one school of scientific thought faulty world view with another stream, such as the conflict between realism with the anti-realist.
Realism
Almost all the thinking about current science faulty world view heavily influenced by the views of realism. As a science, science can not escape the reality of material objects terindra. Realism puts observation and experimentation as a very important thing in science.
By observation, scientists can predict natural phenomena that will happen. For example, in ancient times to the fact that enough, scientists can explain about the solar eclipse.
The realist view that when we have evidence and facts in accordance with the previous facts, then we will be able to predict the same events as events that never existed before.
This observation has many uses in life. Although only a purely mathematical nature, but with roads like that, scientists can simplify the reality they face. With realist method we can also achieve a good level of rationality.
The realists also considers that the theory is very important in a review. Accurate observation and done with can often produce a good theory.
Similarly, theories that are found through these observations can guide scientists to conduct research and new discoveries that are useful and more meaningful.
However, the views are strongly opposed by anti-realists. Meraka think that would be a lot of dishonesty made by scientists when the facts found in the observation does not match what is desired.
Herein lies the error which can not be avoided by the realist. Science becomes something that is not objective, because they already influenced by subjektvitas scientists.
Anti-Realist
For the realist, the theory is considered to give an idea of what the world is. If a theory is considered valid not because the theory is considered correct and in accordance with reality. Similarly, for the adherents of the realist, the truth is the ultimate goal of science.
Meanwhile, the anti-realist science does not need to speak to the issue of truth, because we will never arrive at the truth of our observation data. For the anti-realist theory is considered true as far as the theory is useful to humans. This is not much different from the view of pragmatism and instrumentalisme.
Differences of opinion between them occur also in the case of plogiston, ether, or electrons. For the realist it is, for example electrons. We do not know how the shape of the electron, but so far considered to have sufficient electron trace states that electrons can be observed there and in his footsteps.
For anti-realists, the problem is probably not too important. So far the electron has many uses, and of course it has entered the criteria of truth according to the anti-realist. But in fact, anti-realists reject the argument 'cosmic coincidence' (a condition that makes a natural occurrence but can not be diobsevasi dijelakan by theory).
According to the anti-realist electrons only language of science to explain phenomena that can not be observed. Therefore, there is no problem if the language had nothing to do with reality.
Science is a biological phenomena, and organisms with the environment to facilitate this phenomenon. According to van Fraassen is what makes any scientific explanation of the differences could occur.
If you study the philosophy of science faulty world view, you will meet with various schools of thought in natural science. For example: Realism, Anti-Realist, relativism, and feminism Sci.
In it all, you will find contradictions between one school of scientific thought faulty world view with another stream, such as the conflict between realism with the anti-realist.
Realism
Almost all the thinking about current science faulty world view heavily influenced by the views of realism. As a science, science can not escape the reality of material objects terindra. Realism puts observation and experimentation as a very important thing in science.
By observation, scientists can predict natural phenomena that will happen. For example, in ancient times to the fact that enough, scientists can explain about the solar eclipse.
The realist view that when we have evidence and facts in accordance with the previous facts, then we will be able to predict the same events as events that never existed before.
This observation has many uses in life. Although only a purely mathematical nature, but with roads like that, scientists can simplify the reality they face. With realist method we can also achieve a good level of rationality.
The realists also considers that the theory is very important in a review. Accurate observation and done with can often produce a good theory.
Similarly, theories that are found through these observations can guide scientists to conduct research and new discoveries that are useful and more meaningful.
However, the views are strongly opposed by anti-realists. Meraka think that would be a lot of dishonesty made by scientists when the facts found in the observation does not match what is desired.
Herein lies the error which can not be avoided by the realist. Science becomes something that is not objective, because they already influenced by subjektvitas scientists.
Anti-Realist
For the realist, the theory is considered to give an idea of what the world is. If a theory is considered valid not because the theory is considered correct and in accordance with reality. Similarly, for the adherents of the realist, the truth is the ultimate goal of science.
Meanwhile, the anti-realist science does not need to speak to the issue of truth, because we will never arrive at the truth of our observation data. For the anti-realist theory is considered true as far as the theory is useful to humans. This is not much different from the view of pragmatism and instrumentalisme.
Differences of opinion between them occur also in the case of plogiston, ether, or electrons. For the realist it is, for example electrons. We do not know how the shape of the electron, but so far considered to have sufficient electron trace states that electrons can be observed there and in his footsteps.
For anti-realists, the problem is probably not too important. So far the electron has many uses, and of course it has entered the criteria of truth according to the anti-realist. But in fact, anti-realists reject the argument 'cosmic coincidence' (a condition that makes a natural occurrence but can not be diobsevasi dijelakan by theory).
According to the anti-realist electrons only language of science to explain phenomena that can not be observed. Therefore, there is no problem if the language had nothing to do with reality.
Science is a biological phenomena, and organisms with the environment to facilitate this phenomenon. According to van Fraassen is what makes any scientific explanation of the differences could occur.
