#Epistemology of chemistry

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Chemistry

The philosophy of chemistry is a branch of philosophy of science that focuses on examining the foundational concepts, methods, and assumptions underlying the discipline of chemistry. It addresses questions about the nature of chemical substances, the structure of matter, the laws governing chemical reactions, and the epistemological and metaphysical implications of chemical theories. Here are some key aspects and topics within the philosophy of chemistry:

Ontology of Chemical Substances: Philosophers of chemistry explore the ontological status of chemical substances and investigate questions such as: What are chemical substances? Are they real entities or merely theoretical constructs? How do chemical substances relate to the elements and compounds from which they are composed?

Reductionism vs. Emergence: Philosophical debates in chemistry often revolve around the relationship between micro-level and macro-level descriptions of chemical phenomena. Reductionist approaches seek to explain chemical properties and behavior in terms of underlying physical processes at the molecular or atomic level, while emergentist views emphasize the irreducibility of chemical properties and argue that new properties emerge at higher levels of organization.

Laws of Chemistry: Philosophers analyze the nature of chemical laws, including the principles and regularities that govern chemical reactions and transformations. They investigate whether chemical laws are universal and whether they are descriptive or prescriptive in nature.

Chemical Explanation and Theory: Philosophers of chemistry examine the nature of chemical explanations and theories, including how chemical concepts are defined, how hypotheses are formulated and tested, and how theories are revised and refined over time. They also consider the role of models, analogies, and idealizations in scientific explanation.

Philosophy of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum chemistry explores the behavior of atoms and molecules using principles of quantum mechanics. Philosophers investigate the philosophical implications of quantum chemical theories, including the interpretation of wave functions, the nature of chemical bonding, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical chemistry.

Epistemology of Chemistry: Philosophers of chemistry study the nature and limits of chemical knowledge, including questions about the reliability and objectivity of chemical observations and experiments. They examine issues related to measurement, observation, and inference in chemical research.

Chemistry and Metaphysics: The philosophy of chemistry intersects with metaphysical inquiries about the nature of matter, causation, and change. Philosophers explore ontological questions about the existence and persistence of chemical substances, the identity conditions of chemical entities, and the relationship between chemical and physical properties.

Ethics and Social Dimensions: Philosophers consider ethical and social implications of chemical research and practice, including questions about environmental impact, sustainability, risk assessment, and the responsible conduct of scientific inquiry. They also address issues of scientific integrity, public engagement, and the role of chemistry in shaping societal values and norms.

Overall, the philosophy of chemistry provides a rich and interdisciplinary framework for critically examining the conceptual foundations, methods, and implications of chemical science.

[shithowdy]

wishing people would understand (and advertisers would stop giving the impression) that herbal remedies don't actually work like fantasy potions where you have a Symptom and they magically target that Symptom specifically-- they work exactly like pharmaceutical medicines but at a less concentrated scale, and it can interact poorly with them if you are already using them.

ashwagandha doesn't "lower your anxiety", it reduces your cortisol levels, which can in turn lower your blood pressure and interact with other adrenal and BP meds. ginkgo doesn't "help you think", it dilates your blood vessels and is an anti-platelet, which increases cerebral bloodflow but can interact with other circulatory meds. grapefruit seed extract is an incredible antifungal but it will inhibit enzymes that break down many types of medication and lead to blood toxicity of those meds.

i've worked in this industry since before insta/tiktok was a major force in advertising for it and i've watched the swing from people generally being educated about this niche thing they have come in to buy to "i saw on tiktok that this will give me energy"

.... will it? have you had bloodwork done? are you adequately absorbing your nutrition? are you getting sunlight? stop being scammed by symptom-centric buzzwords. anything that promises it will give you energy or help you focus or whatever else hinges entirely on your body chemistry fitting very certain criteria and a lot of people end up disappointed when that cordyceps did nothing for them when it turns out they're low on stomach acid and not synthesizing their B vitamins correctly or something else that is way above my paygrade to determine.

the american healthcare system is a shitshow and people often have no choice but to take their treatments into their own hand, but "natural remedies" want your money just as bad as "big pharma" and it's up to the individual to do their epistemological due diligence when treating themselves. godbless.

[familyabolisher]

> there exists an arbitrary social distinction between ‘STEM’ and ‘humanities’ which (put crudely) invests greater intellectual merit in STEM as a category of learning more directly involved with positivism and empirical deductions & with a greater capacity for describing an ‘objective’ reality, as opposed to ‘humanities’ as a subject area with less deference to positivism and more deference to subjectivity and fewer obvious methodological paradigms

> this objective/subjective binary gets translated into what is effectively a ‘facts vs feelings’ distinction

> this distinction rests on about a hundred different incorrect premises (that positivism is the most intellectually rigorous exercise and that the conclusions it arrives at are describing a prediscursive reality and that little or no subjectivity is ever imposed on scientific conclusions; that the study of literature, art, history, philosophy, theology, music, etc., can be collapsed into a ‘vibes-based’ approach and don’t themselves rely on methodologies, specific epistemological branches, specialised terminology, &c. &c.; that the study of literature, art, history, philosophy, theology, music, etc. and also the study of mathematics, biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, computer science, psychology, etc. can be grouped into two distinct categories with no overlap and that have nothing to say to one another; that we should be giving discursive weight to the idea that ‘intellectualism’ is a measurable property and a laudable one, and that this is not the discourse of eugenics; this list goes on for a while)

> somehow, rather than challenging these hundred different incorrect premises in any serious way, there exists a significant chunk of humanities students (most often students of literature) who reify the idea that their subject is essentially based on ‘vibes’ and intuition, such that really anyone should be able to do them; they defend the intellectual merit of their subject through the suggestion that ‘STEM people’ who lack their fluency in literary studies are in fact not as ‘intelligent’ as they imagine themselves to be

> this is largely reacting to a cultural phenomenon of ‘STEM people,’ empowered by the widespread perception of their subject as being more intellectually challenging and socially worthwhile than humanities, deriding the study of humanities subjects either as being ‘easy’ or as not being worth the effort in the first place; or both

> nevertheless, it sucks

> suggesting that ‘STEM people’ (or, more broadly, ‘everyone’!) ought to have a fluency in literature (and that their not having this is somehow of concern in a vague sense; implicitly a moral failing) ignores several key facts, including: that a study of literature is as predicated on access to particular time and resources as is a study of, say, biology; that lit studies are as capable of political conservatism as any other discipline and that political conservatism can easily come from practices of ‘critical thinking’ which apply literary methodologies to reach reactionary conclusions; that, just as a study of biology requires the acquisition of knowledge beyond the quotidian and/or intuitive, so too does a study of literature

> it is good to develop critical reading skills and to be able to read broadly and confidently, as these are useful tools for navigating and politically articulating the world around you; it’s bad and also just weird and boring to ignore the contingencies that the development of those skills rest upon in favour of trying to one-up your perceived academic rivals; it’s also weird and boring to be extremely put out that someone is more interested in astrophysics or microbiology than they are in the history of the novel

> all education in all forms is stratified by access contingencies; if you see the critical faculties that you imagine only a humanities education to be able to give you as morally necessary skills, why aren’t you focused on challenging those contingencies?

> none of this would be a problem if we removed the access barriers to all branches of education that capitalist intellectual production demands we keep in place; all of this is essentially a slapfight between a lot of people who have been fortunate enough to gain access to higher education and have internalised the social impetus to disregard + disdain those who didn’t

> all of you are so fucking annoying

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alan-sokals-joke-is-on-us-as-postmoderism-comes-to-science-23a9383c

By: Lawrence Krauss

Published: Jan 5, 2024

When I taught physics at Yale in the 1980s and ’90s, my colleagues and I took pride in our position on “science hill,” looking down on the humanities scholars in the intellectual valleys below as they were inundated in postmodernism and deconstructionism.

This same attitude motivated the mathematician Alan Sokal to publish his famous 1996 article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” in the cultural-studies journal Social Text. He asserted, among other things that “physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct” and that “the scientific community . . . cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.”

Mr. Sokal’s paper was a hoax, designed to demonstrate that postmodernism was nonsense. But today postmodern cultural theory is being infused into the very institutions one might expect to be scientific gatekeepers. Hard-science journals publish the same sort of bunk with no hint of irony:

• In November 2022 the Journal of Chemical Education published “A Special Topics Class in Chemistry on Feminism and Science as a Tool to Disrupt the Dysconscious Racism in STEM.” From the abstract: “This article presents an argument on the importance of teaching science with a feminist framework and defines it by acknowledging that all knowledge is historically situated and is influenced by social power and politics.” The course promises “to explore the development and interrelationship between quantum mechanics, Marxist materialism, Afro-futurism/pessimism, and postcolonial nationalism. To problematize time as a linear social construct, the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of wave-particle duality was utilized.”

• In March 2022 Physical Review Physics Education Research published “Observing whiteness in introductory physics: A case study.” From the abstract: “Within whiteness, the organization of social life is in terms of a center and margins that are based on dominance, control, and a transcendent figure that is consistently and structurally ascribed value over and above other figures.” The paper criticizes “the use of whiteboards as a primary pedagogical tool” on the grounds that they “play a role in reconstituting whiteness as social organization. . . . They collaborate with white organizational culture, where ideas and experiences gain value (become more central) when written down.”

• A January 2023 paper presented at the Joint Mathematics Meeting, the world’s biggest gathering of mathematicians, was titled “Undergraduate Mathematics Education as a White, Cisheteropatriarchal Space and Opportunities for Structural Disruption to Advance Queer of Color Justice.”

Undergraduates are being exposed to this stuff as well. Rice University offers a course called “Afrochemistry: The Study of Black-Life Matter,” in which “students will apply chemical tools and analysis to understand Black life in the U.S. and students will implement African American sensibilities to analyze chemistry.” The course catalog notes that “no prior knowledge of chemistry or African American studies is required for engagement in this course.”

Such ideas haven’t totally colonized scientific journals and pedagogy, but they are beginning to appear almost everywhere and are getting support and encouragement from the scientific establishment. There are also indications that dissent isn’t welcome. When a group of physicists led by Charles Reichhardt wrote to the American Physical Society, publisher of the Physics Education Research journal, to object to the “observing whiteness” article, APS invited a response, then refused to publish it on the grounds that its arguments, which were scientific and quantitative, were based on “the perspective of a research paradigm that is different from the one of the research being critiqued.”

“This is akin to stating that an astronomer must first accept astrology as true before critiquing it,” the dissenters wrote in the final version of their critique, which they had to publish in a different journal, European Review.

That sounds like an exaggeration, but in 2021 Mount Royal University in Canada fired a tenured professor, Frances Widdowson, for questioning whether indigenous “star knowledge” belonged in an astronomy curriculum. The same year, New Zealand‘s Education Ministry decreed that Māori indigenous “ways of knowing” would have equal standing with science in science classes. The Royal Society of New Zealand investigated two scientists for questioning this policy; they were exculpated but resigned. The University of Auckland removed another scientist who questioned the policy from teaching two biology classes.

In 2020, Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society published an article by physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein titled “Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism: The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics.” Ms. Prescod-Weinstein wrote: “Black women must, according to Einstein’s principle of covariance, have an equal claim to objectivity regardless of their simultaneously experiencing intersecting axes of oppression.” This sentence, which dramatically misrepresents Einstein’s theory of general relativity, wouldn’t have been out of place in Mr. Sokal’s 1996 spoof.

Had an article like this appeared in 1996, it would have been dismissed outside the postmodernist fringe. But last year Mr. Sokal himself, noting that the article was No. 56 in the Altmetric ranking of most-discussed scholarly articles for 2020, felt the need to write a 20-page single-spaced rebuttal. The joke turns out to be on all of us—and it isn’t funny.

Mr. Krauss, a theoretical physicist, is president of the Origins Project Foundation and author of “The Edge of Knowledge: Unsolved Mysteries of the Cosmos.”

[ Via: https://archive.md/Bbmju ]

==

Don't forget this gem of ideological gibberish masquerading as both "science" and legitimate scholarship, when it's clearly neither.

Abstract

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

[stormboundscholar]

Heightening Goals!

Day 27-28/100 of Productivity

Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I am going to speak about the last two days, and also about some stuff I thought through. It'll be fun, so let's get started.

Yesterday was pretty nice at the start. I didn't have a lot of important lessons, and I was very motivated. I studied during breaks, lunch time, and also during 2 lessons because one of our teachers hadn't come to school. I started with physics, mostly some mechanics stuff. I continued with geography, and I finished with some literature.

After I got home, I sadly didn't do very well. I thought that I could study a lot but I got caught up with social media and couldn't really start. I studied geometry for an hour and went to sleep.

Today went better! I studied during school like I did yesterday, and continued after getting back home. I started with some literature, I don't really love the lesson but it does have a ton of credit so I got to keep up. I continued with philosophy, epistemology stuff. After that I ended with history.

We get home a little earlier and I started studying right away! I started at around 4:30 pm, and took my chemistry books. I worked for 4 hours as I had a lot of assignments. I continued with 2 hours of grammar, and I finished with maths!

After that I did some research about universities and entrance exams. I am actually far ahead of schedule for my current goals,(I only wanted to go into medicine, and I could do that even if I stopped studying now) so now I am setting a higher goal. I am eyeing top 1k-100, and I think that I could succeed if I work well! I am going to start working a little harder, maybe I could be one of the best.

That's all for now! Good night everyone, and good luck!

[straightlightyagami]

I get being put off the loss of trust in modern science and medicine (and parents letting their child die of preventable diseases by seeking out “alternative treatment”) because that's very serious but I don't think astrology is particularly dangerous to our lives, you said it's because they make judgements of people based on things that have no meaning but you're making judgements of people who like astrology based on things that have no meaning too (a hobby they like that is not generally dangerous to health like anti vaxxers or anti science or alternative medicine). I don't believe in astrology but I don't think judging others based on harmless hobbies is okay. There has been scientists who were into some kind of pseudoscience. For example Newton, he was into alchemy, he believed in it and yet he's one of the most renowned scientists of all times. The thing about scientists is being open minded (of course not when it comes to dangerous things like anti treatments but being open minded about things that don't hurt is not bad).

thanks for the ask. quick note that this answer isn't about the validity of the claims of astrology but rather the specific things in the ask.

In terms of open mindedness, I don't think one can immediately discount any idea without any consideration, but I do think they are not all equally worth of consideration. It's impossible to verify all claims about the world oneself, so one must "outsource" the making of some (or really most) conclusions or gathering of information to experts on that topic and then trust them based on a cursory overview of evidence. Then what is a reasonable belief to have depends on what is at the time the available information. Sorry if it sounds like I'm talking down to you in this epistemological tangent, I promise I'm not, I just wanted to explain everything thoroughly and state all assumptions to leave less room for misinterpretation.

Perhaps I phrased the original post in a more absolutist fashion than I should have. I apologize for that. I don't actually think that even someone having objectively harmful or bigoted beliefs would automatically make all their other beliefs false. The specific example of Newton with alchemy is not that absurd because alchemy was the precursor to modern chemistry, which did not exist at the time, but there are plenty of examples of otherwise reasonable people who are experts in their field believing ridiculous, completely false things about something else, so conversely, someone believing something that is completely wrong (or even easily refuted by evidence) does not imply that everything else they say is wrong (like even beyond the obvious "many hypotheses just turn out to be wrong," many scientists have believed in things like "scientific racism" and eugenics, which is clearly much worse than just "wrong").

So I should not have said it in a way where the obvious interpretation is that I think if you believe in astrology you're like, stupid and wrong about everything, because I don't think that. What I do think is that believing in astrology (like actually literally believing in it, which some people do, not just doing it for fun), something that has been discredited for centuries, may in many cases reflect negatively upon someone's ability to evaluate evidence and come to conclusions, so it would make me less likely to listen to them (which may not be right of me, but one cannot listen to everyone equally).

Last point I'd like to mention is I actually don't think astrology is harmless. As I mentioned, I don't think you should judge people based on superficial traits that they don't have control over, such as when they are born. This, and the concept of things being predetermined, potentially causing one to not put as much effort in, makes for a not very healthy way of navigating society and relationships. People in power (such as Ronald Reagan) using it to make decisions is not a great idea either. Also as I (and many other people) keep saying, astrology et al. being marketed to a mostly female audience is a cause for concern because stereotyping women as illogical is not like, empowering them, given that it's a harmful and untrue stereotype and in many countries women are underrepresented in science.

[the-chomsky-hash]

[A. In the history of science, such as it was practiced in France, Georges Canguilhem brought about a significant shift - cont'd]

[4. In placing the life sciences within this historico-epistemological perspective, essential traits which single out the development of these sciences - cont'd]

b. You see,

[at foundation is a moralization and a positing of value:] the living being involves self-regulation and self-preservation processes

with increasing subtlety we can know the physico-chemical mechanisms which assure them

they nonetheless mark a specificity which the life sciences must take into account, save for themselves omitting what properly constitutes their object and their own domain

Hence a paradoxical fact in the life sciences:

i. it is that if the "scientificization" process is done

by bringing to light physical and chemical mechanisms

by the constitution of domains such as the chemistry of cells and molecules or such as biophysics

by the utilization of mathematical models, etc.,

ii. it has on the other hand, been able to develop only insofar as the problem of the specificity of life and of the threshold it marks among all natural beings was continually thrown back as a challenge.

iii. this means

not that "vitalism," which has circulated so many images and perpetuated so many myths, is true

not that this idea, which has been so often rooted in less rigorous philosophies, must constitute the invincible philosophy of biologists

[rather] it simply means that it has had and undoubtedly still has an essential role as an "indicator" [i.e., index of certain problems, values, and cæsura at the level of concrete reality] in the history of biology

– Michel Foucault, Introduction (part III: The History of Science in France), The Normal and the Pathologic by Georges Canguilhem, 1966, translated by Carolyn R. Fawcett in collaboration with Robert S. Cohen, 1978

[gelunnucifera]

So tl;dr: I'm a big proponent of STEAM in theory, but I have lots of thoughts about STEAM in practice.

The problem I have with many of these examples is it doesn't address the key issue, which is that of "epistemic hierarchies." Epistemology, in this sense, referring to "ways of knowing" or "ways of creating/discovering new knowledge." Epistemic hierarchies refers to how certain ways of knowing -- and the knowledge they generate as a result -- are viewed as more culturally valued than others. Some common examples: Western knowledge systems being more prized over indigenous knowledge systems, STEM over the arts, physical sciences over social sciences.

The exclusionary behavior of STEM students and practitioners and general aversion to STEAM is often rooted in these hierarchies. Artlust (the TikTok respondent) does get into this a bit with their discussion of siloed and holistic knowledge, but they do so in ways that still reinforce the hierarchies. (I'm pulling examples from the video/thread above not to call out specific people/ideas, but because they are convenient examples being already here in the discussion.)

The examples from the TikTok largely refer to ways in which artistic knowledge works in service to science -- as a means of visual science communication, as a means of producing better scientific and engineering products, etc. The discussion of "incorporating" art into a STEM curriculum frames it as subordinate -- a thing that must be included as a supplement to support better scientific and engineering practice -- rather than something transformative and important on its own.

Even comments on how science begets art (origami as math, paint as chemistry) comes across like saying "all art is just science in disguise." Not only does this oversimplify aesthetic beauty by saying all beauty can be described quantitatively, but it fits into a larger approach of uplifting while simultaneously creating hierarchies. It's like how neuroscience is viewed as a more respectable version of psychology, or how colleagues of mine get different responses if they say they do "molecular biology" or "biophysics." The rhetorical attempt is not to say "art is important because it is important" but "art is important because it is science in disguise."

Art is both more than aesthetic/communication and more than science in disguise. It is an entire body of knowledge with its own processes for production and critique.

STEAM needs to showcase how art is valuable in and of itself and not just as a means of enabling better science and engineering, and only then show how that value is connected to STEM. If the intent is to showcase how holistic knowledge improves specialized knowledge, why are we promoting STEAM and not the "liberal arts education" (which requires basic knowledge of a range of topics across the arts, humanities, and sciences)? What unique ways of knowing does art making and critique produce? What new knowledge can art generate? How are the answers of these questions paralleled and entangled with STEM specifically?

IMO, the entanglement of the arts into STEM is warranted (over the liberal arts education model), but it needs to be specific and clear in its intent. Including math in the STEM acronym highlights how STEM is inherently empirical and proof/evidence-based. The inclusion of engineering shows how STEM is procedural and relies on deconstruction/simplification. STEAM, from my stance, showcases how STEM professions are inherently creative and socially-motivated: novel problems require novel solutions, and the problems we choose to dedicate time and effort to are based on personal and social values.

As it is practiced now, STEAM is just a mechanism for uplifting the arts epistemologies above other humanities disciplines, but still often placing it in a subordinate position under the big four in STEM. This will continue so long as we continue to discuss the arts solely as shorthand for aesthetics or communication or science products. Art is a rich discipline that has a lot to say (including modern and postmodern rejections of aesthetics and utilitarianism!). If we continue to view art in this way, we are missing the new knowledge and advancements that it could create and the ways those ideas map onto STEM traditions.

Endnote: My favorite example of STEAM/arts as a generative process that wields science instead of just communicating it is Cassandra Myers' poem "Quantum Entanglement," which draws parallels between quantum mechanics and love (link).

Why art belongs in STEM / STEAM

[zamilahblog]

Revealing Essential Differences: Science versus Philosophy in Denny Ja's discourse

Introduction In the intellectual world, there are two fields of study that often confuse many people, namely science and philosophy. Both have a complex connection but also have essential differences. In Denny JA's discourse, a well -known intellectual from Indonesia, the difference between science and philosophy is one of the controversial topics that is often discussed. This article will reveal the essential differences between science and philosophy in Denny JA's discourse. I. Definition of Science and Philosophy A. Science Science is a discipline of knowledge that focuses on understanding and explanation of phenomena in this world. Science is the result of a systematic scientific method, using empirical evidence to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified. Science has a specific and limited scope, where scientific knowledge is obtained through observation, experimentation, and data analysis. B. Philosophy Philosophy, on the other hand, is the discipline of knowledge that focuses on basic questions about the existence, knowledge, values, and reality. Philosophy tries to answer questions about the purpose of life, reasons for existence, and the nature of life itself. Philosophy uses rational and logical thinking methods to achieve more abstract and conceptual knowledge than science. II. Differences in approach A. Science Approach Science uses a more objective and empirical approach in gaining knowledge. The scientific methods used in science include observation, testing, and data analysis. Science also focuses on new discoveries and the development of theory that can be tested empirically. This scientific approach provides certainty and reliability of the knowledge produced. B. Philosophical Approach Philosophy uses a more subjective and rational approach in gaining knowledge. Philosophy involves critical and logical thinking to achieve a deeper understanding of basic questions about existence and reality. This philosophical approach produces more abstract and conceptual knowledge, which is often difficult to test empirically. III. Difference in scope A. Scope of Science Science has a more specific and limited scope. Each branch of science has a special research area and the method used to understand this phenomenon. Science also focuses on developing theory and principles that can be tested empirically. The scope of science includes fields such as physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics. B. Scope of Philosophy Philosophy has a broader and abstract scope. Philosophy tries to answer basic questions about the existence and reality that involves aspects such as life goals, reasons for existence, and the nature of life. The scope of philosophy includes fields such as ethics, metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. IV. Differences in yield A. Science Results The result of science is knowledge based on empirical evidence and can be tested objectively. Science produces theories and principles that can be applied in everyday life and are used to solve concrete problems. The results of science focus on understanding and explanation of phenomena in this world. B. Philosophy Results The result of philosophy is more abstract and conceptual knowledge. Philosophy produces views on the existence, knowledge, and values that form the basis of human thought. The results of philosophy often cannot be tested empirically and are more oriented towards a deeper understanding of this world.

Check more: Reveal Essential Differences: Science versus Philosophy in Denny JA's discourse

[leohtttbriar]

"As the scholars meticulously chart the heavens in their logbooks, Gøye kneels before cellar furnaces, chanting Latin verses about rising phoenixes and mythological kings, 'grunting the famous words of Paracelsus, that everything of benefit to mankind will be reborn in flames.' Unlike the dream of eternal perfection—the stars fixed in their eternal place—alchemy allows for the necessity of transmutation, and is perhaps more reflective of nature’s restlessness, which is always changing one thing into another and is difficult to predict or control.

Given the slender line that once separated astronomy from astrology and chemistry from alchemy, it’s arguable that these two epistemologies are not inimical but complementary. The American philosopher Edwin Arthur Burtt claimed that the most remarkable and exasperating feature of the scientific revolution was that 'none of its great representatives appears to have known with satisfying clarity just what he was doing or how he was doing it.'"

"Up All Night," Meghan O’Gieblyn

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Natural Kinds

The philosophy of natural kinds deals with the classification and categorization of objects, entities, and phenomena in the natural world. It explores the concept of natural kinds as groups or categories that reflect the structure of reality, rather than arbitrary or human-made classifications. This area of philosophy is central to metaphysics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of language.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Natural Kinds:

Definition of Natural Kinds:

Natural vs. Artificial Kinds: Natural kinds are categories that exist independently of human thought or social conventions. They are contrasted with artificial or conventional kinds, which are categories created by humans for practical purposes. For example, "water" and "gold" are considered natural kinds, while "furniture" or "vehicles" are seen as artificial kinds.

Essential Properties: Natural kinds are often thought to have essential properties, which are the characteristics that all members of the kind share and that define what it means to belong to that kind. For instance, the chemical structure H₂O is an essential property of water.

Realism about Natural Kinds:

Metaphysical Realism: Realists about natural kinds argue that these kinds exist independently of human beliefs, language, or practices. According to this view, natural kinds reflect the objective divisions in nature, and science discovers these kinds rather than inventing them.

Essentialism: Some realists hold an essentialist view, which suggests that natural kinds have a set of necessary and sufficient conditions (essential properties) that determine their membership. For example, the essence of a species like "tiger" includes certain genetic and biological traits.

Nominalism and Conventionalism:

Nominalism: Nominalists, on the other hand, deny the existence of natural kinds as objective features of the world. They argue that categories are constructed by humans and do not reflect any inherent divisions in nature.

Conventionalism: Conventionalists believe that the categories we use to classify the world are based on human conventions and practices rather than on any intrinsic structure of reality. According to this view, what counts as a natural kind is largely determined by social or linguistic conventions.

Philosophical Issues:

Inductive Inference: Natural kinds are often linked to the problem of induction in philosophy. The idea is that if natural kinds are real, they can support inductive inferences—generalizing from a sample of observations to broader conclusions. For example, observing that all samples of water boil at 100°C (under standard conditions) allows us to infer that this is a property of the natural kind "water."

Scientific Classification: The philosophy of natural kinds has significant implications for scientific classification. Scientists rely on the notion of natural kinds to group entities in ways that reflect underlying natural structures, which is crucial for forming scientific laws and theories. For example, the periodic table in chemistry is a classification of elements based on their natural kinds.

Challenges to the Concept of Natural Kinds:

Biological Species Problem: One of the major challenges to the idea of natural kinds is the problem of biological species. In biology, species are often seen as fluid and not always fitting neatly into natural kinds because of evolution, gene flow, and hybridization. This challenges the idea that species have essential properties or that they are fixed natural kinds.

Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) Theory: In response to such challenges, some philosophers propose the HPC theory, which suggests that natural kinds are not defined by a single essence but by a cluster of properties that tend to co-occur due to a stable underlying mechanism. For example, a species might be defined by a cluster of genetic, morphological, and behavioral traits that are maintained by evolutionary processes.

Natural Kinds in Chemistry and Physics:

Chemical Elements: The concept of natural kinds is perhaps most straightforward in chemistry and physics, where elements and fundamental particles are seen as paradigmatic examples of natural kinds. Each element on the periodic table is classified based on its atomic number, which is considered an essential property of that kind.

Subatomic Particles: In physics, particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons are also treated as natural kinds, with specific properties (e.g., charge, mass) that define their identity.

Natural Kinds in the Social Sciences:

Debate on Social Kinds: The application of the concept of natural kinds to the social sciences is more contentious. Some argue that categories like race, gender, or mental disorders should be treated as natural kinds, while others see them as socially constructed and not reflecting natural divisions in the world.

Social Kinds as Natural Kinds: Some philosophers propose that certain social kinds could be considered natural if they are stable and have causal powers similar to those of natural kinds in the physical sciences. For instance, certain mental health conditions might be seen as natural kinds if they consistently manifest specific symptoms and respond to particular treatments.

The philosophy of natural kinds is an exploration of how we categorize and understand the world around us. It raises important questions about the nature of reality, the basis of scientific classification, and the extent to which our concepts reflect objective divisions in the natural world. Whether natural kinds are real or constructed, essential or cluster-based, the debate continues to shape our understanding of science, language, and reality itself.

[gynandromorph]

iowasi replied to your post: TODAY i am going to… resist the urge to spend this...

What kinda topic(s) are you most seeking rn?

honestly no topic in particular besides that diplomatic history really bores me to read for leisure

[biology-geology-beaches-india]

Aphorism 100. The Philosophy of Tropical Littorals and Seashores. Satyendra Sunkavally.

[copela4692]

A Picture held us Captive - Facts and Values in the Science-Policy Interface

A Picture held us Captive – Facts and Values in the Science-Policy Interface

This essay appeared here in Convivium, a publication of the Cardus think tank. I am currently a fellow in the inaugural cohort of Cardus’ NextGEN program. Over the past year or so, there has been continuous reference to complex social decisions as straightforwardly scientific, as though value judgments do not apply, or play only a limited role. Some of the most prominent examples include the…

[anarkissm]

claudette morel’s mind always seems to see a pattern in the chaos. forces her to process the world like data waiting to be connected, constructed, into information. epistemology. but the brain is more than that. so much more horrifying than that. it is a forest. neurons and synapses connecting like a thousand roots in the dirt. reacting and acclimatizing to its ecosystem. reaching blindly into the void. the human experience is only a convolution of chemicals and cells and retinas, processing a fraction of the light waves known to exist in the universe. a flesh-illusion.

and claudette acclimatizes to the entity. her genius becomes a tool for survival. a defense mechanism, like thorns on a rose.  she cracks the bones of hexes, imbued with the entity's power, and uses the sharp pieces to cut into her skin. words. warnings. revelations. death is not an escape, across her forearms, her thighs. destroy the hexes. write your plans with bones and skin. find vigo's journals. vigo. vigo. vigo. over and over.

claudette morel can escape the trial grounds, the monsters, the killers, but not her own body. she dies, she lives, she wakes up in the fog, by a campfire. year after year. century after century. the entity forces its victims to forget, or remember, at its own leisure. to repeat the horror that takes place in its trial grounds, fresh, reborn. but the warnings linger, for a moment. written with hex bones and, when the season is right, pustula thorns. just a moment. just long enough that claudette sees. begins to question everything.

and she does not escape. not from the entity.

but she finds the exit.

there are certain people who have the potential to escape the fog, and one of them would unquestionably be claudette morel. her encyclopedic knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology compels her to understand. to find solutions. when fear forces others to react, claudette only wants control.

it is not difficult to keep her mind open. to experiment. she develops a greater understanding of the entity, as an organism. her research focuses on the fog. learns that it is alive, and it holds memories. thousands and thousands of memories, from different worlds. planets.

alchemy was once considered to be a science. science was once considered to be witchcraft, blasphemy. and what is an old god, to a nonbeliever? claudette uses what she has at her disposal. hawkins national laboratory. lerry’s memorial hospital. racoon city police department's forensics lab. the temple of purgation. anything. anywhere. she becomes a scavenger, uninterested in the entity’s rules or objectives.

her research is primarily conducted alone, as a contingency. the crows are always watching, spying. her behavior would be considered strange and contradictory to amnesic victims. but claudette is not above pleading for help, from survivors. from killers. deals. trades. the possibly of freedom. real freedom. not just an opened gate, or a hatch on the floor.

[perkwunos]

The authors of this chapter have become convinced that a Kuhnian paradigm shift is afoot, not only in biology, but across the multiple scientific disciplines and methodologies relevant to the origin of life. Advances in complex systems science and the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics have helped narrow the gaps between physics, chemistry, and biology, but many conceptual knots remain to be untangled. Indeed, making progress on the question of life’s origin may require a fundamental transformation of traditional conceptions of the relations among the sciences and their varying methods of explanation. …

The authors further affirm that continued progress in the effort to understand the place of life in the cosmos will require a transdisciplinary approach integrating the core insights and methodologies of not only astrobiology and philosophy, but also religious studies and theology. We value the freedom and autonomy of each of the special sciences to invent and test hypotheses unencumbered by the assumptions of other sciences (e.g., molecular biologists operate within a different paradigmatic context compared with evo-devo and systems biologists, etc.). We similarly insist upon the independence of science from theological orthodoxies (e.g., that life was designed and created from scratch by an omnipotent deity, or that the human soul is a supernatural substance existing in causal isolation from the rest of cosmic evolution). Scientific curiosity is to be checked only by the need for logical coherence and experiential adequacy (including ethical considerations). While metaphysics and theology have been “warned off the premises” of modern experimental laboratories, these ancient disciplines nonetheless retain an essential function in the effort to understand our cosmic origins. For one thing, philosophy and religion inevitably contribute to any final integration of scientific findings into a meaningful and motivating worldview for humanity at large. But even more significantly for natural science, metaphysics has a crucial role to play in shoring up science’s own epistemological and cosmological conditions of possibility. Whitehead asks: “What is there in the nature of things which leads there to be any science?” His answer is that trust in science requires a metaphysics explanatory of the insistent rationality of things. For Whitehead, cosmic rationality is a consequence of the inextricable causal entanglement of all things: “there is an essence to the universe which forbids relationships beyond itself, as a violation of its rationality.” Natural science thus assumes the universal communicability of the causal nexus across all scales of Nature. Science further presupposes that conscious organisms have arisen within this nexus who are capable of turning back to contemplate their own cosmic origins. It is imperative, then, that a way be found for scientific conceptions of physical causation, chemical reaction, and biological origination to hang together with our commonsense experience of conscious awareness and agency. For after all, if our consciousness is a total sham, then so are all our scientific inquiries and religious aspirations. Consciousness must somehow “[have] truck with the totality of things,” and it is the job of philosophy to critique and reconstruct the abstractions of the special sciences so as to recover a concrete sense of our connection with the cosmos as a whole. …

Matthew David Segall and Bruce Damer, The Cosmological Context of the Origin of Life: Process Philosophy and the Hot Spring Hypothesis