Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0075034564 = product of:
  0.022510368 = sum of:
    0.022510368 = product of:
      0.045020737 = sum of:
        0.045020737 = weight(_text_:history in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045020737 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21898255 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047072954 = queryNorm
            0.20559052 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The great dream of philosophers and scientists for millennia has been to give us a complete account of the order of things. A powerful articulation of such a dream in this century has been found in the idea of a unity of science. With this manifesto, John Dupre systematically attacks the ideal of scientific unity by showing how its underlying assumptions are at odds with the central conclusions of science itself. In its stead, the author gives us a metaphysics much more in keeping with what science tells us about the world. Elegantly written and compellingly argued, this provocative book will be important reading for all philosophers and scholars of science. Dupre's book is original, lucid and confident, without being eccentric, polemical or arrogant. It deserves close attention...Dupre insists that there is no general scientific method, process, or attitude...He pins down the notion of the unity of science as a form of scientism appropriate only to a Utopia or to totalitarianism. He notes that 'paradoxically, with the disunity of science comes a kind of unity of knowledge.' That is why, to my mind, this is just the kind of philosophical teaching that is needed to close the gap between the two cultures. -- John Ziman Nature The thesis of 'disorder' has revolutionary implications for the practice of science...[This book] should be read by every student of the subject as an antidote to current philosophical correctness, and it should indeed suggest to professionals that many of the fashionable empires of analytic philosophy as well as philosophy of science are not well-clothed. -- Mary Hesse International Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science

0.0037517282 = product of:
  0.011255184 = sum of:
    0.011255184 = product of:
      0.022510368 = sum of:
        0.022510368 = weight(_text_:history in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022510368 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21898255 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047072954 = queryNorm
            0.10279526 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Now it might seem that is a fairly well-defined scientific task: just figure out how the brain does it. In the end I think that is the right attitude to have. But our peculiar history makes it difficult to have exactly that attitude-to take consciousness as a biological phenomenon like digestion or photosynthesis, and figure out how exactly it works as a biological phenomenon. Two philosophical obstacles cast a shadow over the whole subject. The first is the tradition of God, the soul, and immortality. Consciousness is not a part of the ordinary biological world of digestion and photosynthesis: it is part of a spiritual world. It is sometimes thought to be a property of the soul and the soul is definitely not a part of the physical world. The other tradition, almost as misleading, is a certain conception of Science with a capital "S." Science is said to be "reductionist" and "materialist," and so construed there is no room for consciousness in Science. If it really exists, consciousness must really be something else. It must be reducible to something else, such as neuron firings, computer programs running in the brain, or dispositions to behavior. There are also a number of purely technical difficulties to neurobiological research. The brain is an extremely complicated mechanism with about a hundred billion neurons in ... (Rest nicht frei). " [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/01/10/can-information-theory-explain-consciousness/].