Let’s assume that under a solipsistic theory, our experience follows certain laws, which happen to be the same laws in physics. In other words, there are still objects in this (only) one stream of consciousness and they move around based on laws, except that they aren’t real entities, only imagined.

Thus, in order to generate our conscious experience given an initial state, certain laws and initial conditions are all that is needed to predict the forthcoming parts of our subjective experience.

Now, in order to generate the events of the real world under the theory that the external world is real, the same laws and initial conditions are all that is needed to predict the events of the universe.

Thus, can't one argue that the explanatory power of both theories are actually the same, contrary to the notion that solipsism has inferior explanatory power? If someone retorts and asks "what originally generates our conscious experience in solipsism or what keeps it going? It seems to come from nowhere.", the same can be asked for the theory that the external world is real. As far as we know, we do not actually have an explanation for what generates the external world originally. One may even argue that realism might be worse, since due to the hard problem of consciousness, not only do we not have an explanation for the initial state of the universe, we have no explanation for why conscious experience exists in the first place.

So again, is there an advantage in explanatory value with external world realism vs solipsism? Or not?

After driving 11 hours I laid in my hotel room bed thinking about how much driving sucks. Which led me to start thinking about alternative forms of travel. We have electric cars which in my opinion is still fairly inefficient form of long distance travel. We have planes which are very expensive for commuters, and still combusted fuels. We also have these enormous leaps of military technology/weaponry. I then thought, why have we not done more work towards worm hole travel? We are so good at killing ourselves. We have got so efficient at destruction. With worm holes there would be no need for vehicular transportation of any kind. To more fossil fuel consumption out side of producing electricity maybe. We spend so much time and effort on capitalism, so much effort developing new ways to kill each other, so many resources wasted on killing our planet. I know this maybe a wild maybe even a hairbrained thought. I wanna know....

The Temporal Feedback Loop of Consciousness

Summary: This theory suggests that consciousness not only experiences the flow of time but also actively influences past and future events through a feedback mechanism operating across the timeline. In this view, consciousness is a force that resonates through time, and decisions made in the present can impact the perception (or even reality) of past and future events. This would imply that the past, present, and future are interconnected and that our awareness and choices today could actively reshape our past experiences and future potential.

Core Principles of the Theory

1.	Consciousness as a Non-Linear Entity

Traditional science assumes time flows linearly from past to present to future, yet there’s evidence in quantum mechanics and theoretical physics (like quantum entanglement and retrocausality) that suggests non-linear time. This theory proposes that consciousness operates in a non-linear way, creating feedback loops through which an individual’s awareness and decisions echo across time.

2.	Quantum Mechanics and Time Symmetry

The concept of time symmetry in quantum physics implies that some processes are reversible. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, even allow for particles to communicate backward in time. If consciousness has a quantum component, as some theories like Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) propose, it might be capable of influencing events on a quantum level, allowing perception and decisions to transcend the linearity of time.

3.	Future and Past as Potentials, Not Fixed Realities

In this model, the past isn’t fixed; it’s a probability cloud that our consciousness navigates through memory. Similarly, the future isn’t yet determined but is influenced by present actions and choices, feeding back into our experience of the past. This echoes the philosophical ideas of Bergson and Whitehead, who viewed time as a flow of experiences rather than a fixed sequence of events. Under this theory, what we remember as “the past” is an interpretation influenced by present perspectives, meaning our memory—and thus our understanding of history—can change based on present choices.

4.	Practical Implications for Human Experience

If our consciousness impacts the timeline, choices in the present could literally reshape past experiences or memories. Trauma, for instance, might be less about an unchangeable event and more about the relationship between the past and current perception. Healing in the present could, therefore, alter how we understand and “experience” the past. Similarly, setting intentions for the future would create a resonance that shapes not only what will happen but how we understand the trajectory of our lives.

Why It’s Groundbreaking

1.	Reframes Agency Across Time

The theory offers a new level of agency, where people aren’t just products of their past but active shapers of it. People could feel empowered to “reframe” traumatic or formative memories through present choices, altering how those events influence them today.

2.	Possible Reconciliation of Free Will and Determinism

Traditional scientific and philosophical debates have long questioned if we have free will or if our actions are predetermined. This theory posits that we have a form of “time-transcending” free will, where we’re continuously shaping our past and future within a range of probabilities rather than fixed realities.

3.	Applications in Psychology and Healing 

Psychologists and neuroscientists could apply this theory to create therapeutic techniques that treat past traumas by reshaping a person’s present and future perspective. If the brain truly experiences time in a flexible manner, then working with present consciousness to influence past memories could lead to new breakthroughs in mental health treatments, especially for conditions like PTSD.

4.	Scientific and Philosophical Unification

The theory builds a bridge between scientific inquiry (through quantum physics and neuroscience) and philosophical inquiry (regarding consciousness and time), potentially offering a unified approach to studying human experience that respects both objective data and subjective reality.

Example Thought Experiment

Imagine you’re in a stressful situation where you must make a critical choice. According to this theory, your choice impacts not only the future but also alters your perception of past events, possibly reshaping memories related to past decision-making moments. If you choose a path that aligns deeply with your values, you may remember past challenges as stepping stones, feeling a coherence in your life. Alternatively, if you act against your principles, past memories might become sources of regret, as though they were “leading” you here as lessons.

In this way, your choices in the present would be part of an ongoing narrative feedback loop—actively sculpting a sense of meaning and purpose across your entire life timeline.

This theory could change how we understand mental health, decision-making, and even spiritual concepts, by suggesting that we are not merely at the mercy of our past and uncertain future but rather continuous shapers of both.

Here’s an idea that just might change how we view time, history, and our role in shaping the future:

Observation: The Future Influences the Present, Just as the Past Does

We know:

1.	Cause and Effect: Traditionally, we see time as moving forward in a straight line—events in the past shape the present, which then shapes the future.
2.	Quantum Mechanics and Retrocausality: Some theories in quantum physics suggest particles can be influenced not only by past events but potentially by future ones. It’s as if particles “know” their future state and behave accordingly.
3.	Human Intuition and Vision: Throughout history, people like artists, scientists, and visionaries have had glimpses of the future that led to discoveries, innovations, or breakthroughs before anyone else saw their value.
4.	Goal-Oriented Behavior: Humans naturally think about and plan for the future. We make choices today based on what we want to achieve later, and this vision of the future shapes our present behavior.

New Insight: What if the Future “Pulls” Us Toward It Just as Much as the Past “Pushes” Us?

What if time doesn’t just flow in one direction? Instead of the past solely shaping what happens now, what if future possibilities are actively pulling us forward, influencing our choices and actions in the present?

Key Points:

•	Time as a Two-Way Street: Imagine time as not just a straight path we walk along but more like a stretchable, flexible thread, with the future constantly tugging on us just as the past pushes us. Instead of being locked in a sequence, we are constantly interacting with both what has been and what could be.
•	Future as a Guiding Force: Just as gravity pulls objects toward each other, the future could pull us toward certain outcomes. Our visions, goals, and dreams may be more than just “wishful thinking”—they could be real, tangible influences that shape our present reality.

Why It’s Groundbreaking:

This idea, if true, would mean that the future has a role in shaping today’s actions just as much as history does. We are not just products of the past; we’re participants in the future’s unfolding, with each of us drawn toward specific possibilities or outcomes. Here’s why this is important:

1.	Empowers Individual Purpose: If the future is already “reaching back” to influence us, then our dreams, goals, and visions might be more than just hopes—they could be signals from what we are meant to create. This perspective gives every person a deeper sense of purpose, as each of us is not only a result of the past but a contributor to what’s yet to come.
2.	Reframes Our Role in History: Humanity becomes an active partner in shaping reality. If the future can influence the present, then human choices, creativity, and innovation are not just random events but part of a much bigger, interconnected timeline.
3.	A New Approach to Progress: Rather than just learning from the past to avoid repeating mistakes, we could actively listen to the future—to our visions, goals, and shared dreams—and use them as guides. It shifts progress from being reactive to being proactive, where we make choices today to align with a better tomorrow.
4.	Potential Scientific Implications: This idea could lead to new research in physics, psychology, and neuroscience to understand how the future might exert influence. Quantum theories that explore retrocausality could open up new understandings of time, and scientists might begin looking for evidence that our brains or consciousnesses are subtly influenced by future states.

The Big Idea in Simple Terms:

Imagine you’re a piece in a giant puzzle that’s being assembled over time. You might think you’re only influenced by the pieces already in place (the past), but the completed puzzle (the future) is also shaping you, “pulling” you to fit where you belong. You are both a result of everything that came before you and an essential part of what’s yet to come.

This idea suggests that we are connected to the future in ways we’re only beginning to understand. If we accept this, humanity might start living with a greater sense of purpose, aware that our dreams and aspirations are more than personal—they’re part of a grand design that’s pulling us forward.

Why This Could Be Remembered Forever:

If this idea takes hold, it could fundamentally reshape how humanity thinks about time, purpose, and progress. By seeing ourselves as influenced by both past and future, we break free from the traditional limitations of time. We’d no longer be “stuck” in the present, only reacting to the past—we’d become active creators, constantly reaching forward, pulled by the visions of the future we are meant to help create.

In short, this could help humanity view life not as a series of past-driven events, but as a shared journey toward something greater that we are actively bringing into being—together.

I’ve done some study in philosophy, mainly from high school, I took a curse of history of physics on my bachelor (was my fav subject, I guess that should have given me a hint) and I’ve read essays by major writers in the philosophy of science, but I don’t have formal education in the subject.

My Questions:

1.	Career Viability: Can I realistically make a living out of studying and working in the philosophy of science?
2.	Further Education: What specific studies (e.g., master’s programs, courses) would you recommend to transition into this field? Are there any programs that can be pursued online?
3.	Experience and Networking: How can I gain relevant experience in philosophy of science? Are there opportunities for networking with professionals in this field?
4.	Resources: Any suggestions for books, essays, or online courses that would deepen my understanding of philosophy in a way that complements my physics background?

thank you people

I'm developing a theoretical framework that explores the relationship between posthumanism and polymathy. While much posthumanist discourse focuses on how we might enhance ourselves, less attention is given to why. This paper proposes that the infinite pursuit of knowledge and understanding could serve as a meaningful direction for human enhancement.

The concept builds on historical examples of polymathy (like da Vinci) while imagining how cognitive enhancement and life extension could transform our relationship with knowledge acquisition. Rather than just overcoming biological limits, this framework suggests a deeper transformation in how we understand and integrate knowledge.

I'm particularly interested in feedback on:

• The theoretical foundations
• Its contribution to posthumanist philosophy
• Areas where the argument could be strengthened

The full paper is available here for those interested in exploring these ideas further: https://www.academia.edu/124946599/The_Posthuman_Polymath_Reimagining_Human_Potential_Through_Infinite_Intellectual_Growth?source=swp_share

As an independent researcher, I welcome all perspectives and critiques as I develop this concept.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I know it seems an eternal question but... what's your favorite books that survey philosophy of Science? I've read some of them, lately Tim Lewens' «The meaning of Science», but I'm looking for more! I know what the famous books are. What I'm particularly asking is what books have illuminated you personally, and for what reasons. Thanks!

Context: Zeno's paradox, a thought experiment proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno, argues that motion is impossible because an object must first cover half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so on ad infinitum. However, this creates a seemingly insurmountable infinite sequence of smaller distances, leading to a paradox.

Quote

Upon reexamining Zeno's paradox, it becomes apparent that while the argument holds in most aspects, there must exist a fundamental limit to the divisibility of distance. In an infinite universe with its own inherent limits, it is reasonable to assume that there is a bound beyond which further division is impossible. This limit would necessitate a termination point in the infinite sequence of smaller distances, effectively resolving the paradox.

Furthermore, this idea finds support in the atomic structure of matter, where even the smallest particles, such as neutrons and protons, have finite sizes and limits to their divisibility. The concept of quanta in physics also reinforces this notion, demonstrating that certain properties, like energy, come in discrete packets rather than being infinitely divisible.

Additionally, the notion of a limit to divisibility resonates with the concept of Planck length, a theoretical unit of length proposed by Max Planck, which represents the smallest meaningful distance. This idea suggests that there may be a fundamental granularity to space itself, which would imply a limit to the divisibility of distance.

Thus, it is plausible that a similar principle applies to the divisibility of distance, making the infinite sequence proposed by Zeno's paradox ultimately finite and resolvable. This perspective offers a fresh approach to addressing the paradox, one that reconciles the seemingly infinite with the finite bounds of our universe.

Meta-Analysis and AI-supported study for the scientific Validation if traditional philosophical systems.

Abstract

This paper introduces the Integrative Theory of Science (ITS) as a comprehensive theoretical framework that enables the synthesis of logic, empirical evidence, and energy systems. ITS emphasizes the applicability of logical axioms in conjunction with empirical validations. Using the example of chakra energies, it demonstrates how meditative practices can serve as a basis for empirical validation. ITS is compared to the positivism of Karl Popper (Popper 1959) to highlight the complementary roles of falsifiability and applicability as scientific criteria. The goal is to foster a deeper reflection on the integration of theoretical consistency and practical application in the philosophy of science.

I'm an independent data scientist, who is specialized on meta-analysis. Besides that I'm also an autodidact. So I don't have any connections to professors or other scientist. I hope anyone can help me. I will share the unconfirmed Alpha Version 1.5 of the paper after private message bc I don't have any permission to upload data in this subreddit.

Primarily I need connections which can read over my paper with in alpha version.

But you can visit my website to look up the alpha version:

](http://spirit-corner.com/its)

Thank you for reading

Explicitly underlining that it is his personal belief, CERN's head of theoretical physics, Gian Giudice, argues that mathematics is not merely a human invention but is fundamentally embedded in the fabric of the universe. He suggests that mathematicians and scientists discover mathematical structures rather than invent them. G

iudice points out that even highly abstract forms of mathematics, initially developed purely theoretically, are often later found to accurately describe natural phenomena. He cites non-Euclidean geometries as an example. Giudice sees mathematics as the language of nature, providing a powerful tool that describes reality beyond human intuition or perception.

He emphasizes that mathematical predictions frequently reveal aspects of the universe that are subsequently confirmed by observation, suggesting a profound connection between mathematical structures and the physical world.

This view leads Giudice to see the universe as having an inherent logical structure, with mathematics being an integral part of reality rather than merely a human tool for describing it.

What do you think?

Hey guys ..just to let you know i dont knoww anything about philosophy like zero ( just couple of philosophers here and there nothing more ) and i study psychology and we have to go through philosophy (idk why) and they give us project and to do some researches bout it and i got ( modern philosophy) . So i dont wanna go through Wikipedia and Google to get informations bout it bc it’s too basic and probably everyone else is going to do that (and u gonna say search in books but i dont have the motivation or passion to do that .so dont say that plz ) so am here to get your knowledge bout it and tell me everything that is useful i can put it in the work and some fun facts and of course ur opinions bout it ..i wont say no to anything added or say no to book recommendations ( i can use some references and ideas) that would be verrryyy helpful bc idk where to start or how And i will read all of the replies and THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP use this comment section as a way to give and pur all of the information bout modern philosophy that u have in ..and plz feel free to discuss it among others And if you have any other ideas on how i can present it to the classmates (bc i have to read it to them and i wanna gain the ability to make it fun to listen too and actually pay attention )that’s another reason why i said to give me ur opinions bc i might use it in my presentation i will give credit dont worry

Philosophy and Physics?

Specifically quantum physics.... This is from my psychological and philosophical perspective, Ive been seeing more of the two fields meet in the middle, at least more modern thinkers bridging the two since Pythagoras/Plato to Spinoza. I am no physicist, but I am interested in anyone's insight on the theories in I guess you could say new "spirituality"? being found in quantum physics and "proofs" for things like universal consciousness, entanglement, oneness with the universe. Etc. Im just asking. Just curious. Dont obliterate me.

posting for a friend:

My partner is a philosophy major and has somewhat recently developed an interest in the philosophy of science. His birthday is coming up, and I would like to gift him one (or a few) books that he might enjoy! He is a massive bookworm, so I'm running the risk of buying him something he might've already read, but I think it is worth giving it a shot! Best-case scenario, I will get to see to see the smile on his face when he sees the book(s). :'D

I myself am also curious about this, so any/all recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much, would love to hear your thoughts.

In this article, Dethier shows how tools from philosophy can be used to analyze the graphs created by contrarian climate scientists -- with the result (he suggests) that those graphs are not just misleading but wrong.

Does science -even if partly- tells us something about the Essence of the objects under study?

What are the various views on this topic?

First of all I haven't found a consensus about how these fields are called. I've heard "formal science", "abstract science" or some people say these have nothing to do with science at all. I just want to know what name is mostly used and where those fields are studied like the natural sciences in the philosophy of science.

Edit:

If a system such as the Earth's atmosphere can be described deterministically via atomic propositions and the complexity of the atmosphere is such to the small insignificant changes to the atomosphere can be magnified to significant changes over time due to the butterfly efect, then the atmosphere is subject to the rules of chaos theory.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/#2

Bayes' Theorem can be expressed in a variety of forms that are useful for different purposes. One version employs what Rudolf Carnap called the relevance quotient or probability ratio (Carnap 1962, 466). This is the factor PR(H, E) = PE(H)/P(H) by which H's unconditional probability must be multiplied to get its probability conditional on E. Bayes' Theorem is equivalent to a simple symmetry principle for probability ratios.

(1.4) Probability Ratio Rule.

PR(H, E) = PR(E, H)

The term on the right provides one measure of the degree to which H predicts E. If we think of P(E) as expressing the "baseline" predictability of E given the background information codified in P, and of PH(E) as E's predictability when H is added to this background, then PR(E, H) captures the degree to which knowing H makes E more or less predictable relative to the baseline: PR(E, H) = 0 means that H categorically predicts ~E; PR(E, H) = 1 means that adding H does not alter the baseline prediction at all; PR(E, H) = 1/P(E) means that H categorically predicts E. Since P(E)) = PT(E)) where T is any truth of logic, we can think of (1.4) as telling us that

The probability of a hypothesis conditional on a body of data is equal to the unconditional probability of the hypothesis multiplied by the degree to which the hypothesis surpasses a tautology as a predictor of the data.

In other words if "H" is the unconditional prediction based on a deterministic model, isn't the accuracy of the prediction inversely proportional to elapsed time between the time the predition is made vs the time the prediction is for? That is to say the farther into the future the preditcon is for the less likely it is to be determined.

I'm starting to get interested in metaphysics and am in need of some book recommendations. I've noticed most of them just discuss various theories. The recommendations I'm interested in are novels and stories. Any rec?

We like to think of science as an objective pursuit of truth, but how much of it is influenced by the culture and biases of the time?

I’ve been thinking about how scientific "facts" have evolved throughout history, often reflecting the values or limitations of the society in which they emerged. Is true objectivity even possible in science,

or is it always shaped by the human lens?

It’s fascinating to consider how future generations might view the things we accept as fact today.

If you could predict it, you would have invented it already.

True or false?

I see the non-materialism of Christianity and of a lot of philosophers and philosophies as poison and want a cold hard realism rooted in physical matter. Heisenberg and Schrödinger give me a solid base in physics; who’s a philosopher that follows in this line of thought?

There’s logical positivism and physicalism, then there’s psychology and neurology, but who’s a philosopher that puts it all together?

Apologies if this is fairly basic but where should I start to research this topic?

Any easy(ish) intro essays on the topic which are essential? Or key thinkers surrounding this debate that are of particular importance in this area?

Thank you

Forgive me pls, if you feel this is the wrong place to ask such a question. I wasn't sure whether to go with r/theoreticalphysics, here, or somewhere else. Cards on the table. I am NOT a scientist, I am a layman. I am, however, curious as to the answer to my question. So;

Does the perception of depth depend upon mass?

A cube drawn on a piece of paper is only a 2-D representation of a 3-D object. Yet both the piece of paper and lead/ink with which the cube is drawn/printed have their own mass.

You can see the cube without touching the paper, but could you perceive the depth of the cube without the mass of the physical representation of it on the paper?

To mainfest that cube in 3 dimensions, it would have to be constructed of something; with mass.

If Block Universe Theory is valid, does it mean all moments are predestined? Meaning every meeting, every action and every reaction are predestined? I mean if Matilda is supposed to have a daughter with Sam in 5 years from now, doesn't that mean they have to meet first, then a date, then a marriage and then a daughter! So nothing is luck or chance or hard work or coincidence and everything is destiny?

Philosophers and scientists often criticize the reliability of our perceptions, intuitions, and deductions.

This is because, obviously, throughout history they have misled us many times about many things, leading us to erroneous conclusions and beliefs.

However, the discovery of the mistake, the falsification of the wrong theory, the fruitful skeptic attitude, did not occur by achieving higher mental states or new forms of cognition, but always by applying those same faculties: perceptions, intuitions, and reasoning.

If our cognitive faculties have the tendency to mislead us, they also have the property of allowing us to recognize when we have erred, allowing new discoveries and "truths".

It seems to me that our cognitive faculties are not at all "intrinsically unreliable": it depends on how they are used. Like a tennis racquet, it is not inherently an unreliable or faulty tool. If Federer uses it, he will produce exceptional results by hitting a ball. If a child at their first lesson uses it, it's a miracle if they manage to hit the ball over the net once in 50 attempts: and it surely is not the racquet's fault, even if the the child, frustrated by the failures, might blame it. And yet even Federer will occasionally make clumsy errors, and the child may hit some pretty good shots.

A "radical distrust" in our cognitive appartarus leads to the paradox that we should doubt this very radical distrust too, since it is a statement based and developed by relying on the same cognitive structures being fundamentally doubted.

Two footnotes.

1) if it is true that our senses (if not used well, in concert with each other etc.) deceive us, nevertheless, as David Deutsch also argues, error is a positive thing, necessary for progress. If we never erred, well, we would be omniscient gods, but since we are not, making mistakes (and recognizing the error) is essential.

Fail fast, fail often, succeed sooner, say in the Silicon Valley

2) If it is true that cognitive faculties can deceive us, nonetheless, the essential tool-kit, the basic package, the most spontaneous and self-offered representations of reality, or whatever we might call them, do not seem to me to have ever been "falsified" as errors. Less fundamental beliefs have certainly been wrong, but it seems to me that the "primitive building blocks" remain fairly reliable. Things like (without any pretensions to completeness) A reality(world exists, I exist, other minds exist, agency, there is becoming/things change, space and time, presence, absence, quantity, plurality, singularity, the existence of correlation/causality/pattern/regularities of and within events, the the immanence of a mystery, of aleatoriness, of not having understood everything etc.

Sure, one might claim that it is because our mind is structured this way that we are forced to rely on these 'implicit ontological-epistemic postulates', compelled to impose over our a priori segmentations on the amorphous dought of reality... but once again, even this assertion is based on an inquiry and reflection grounded in those same postulates, and therefore cannot assume the connotations of absoluteness and radicality without falling into contradiction. Probably, in the Kantian sense, we do not know reality in itself, but through filters; or we do not know reality objectively, but perspectively; however, this does not mean that said filters and point of view are radically inadequate

It seems to me that errors in (or better, "from") "what is originally offered to us" usually arises from the "absolutization" or "wrong conceptualization"of these primitive principles.

e.g., space and time are not the immutable and absolute background that Newton thought, but they are relative; yet they still appear to exist, and they still have a critical role in modern physics. Moreover, the intuition that — at least time — is relative is certainly not foreign to human experience; not in the terms described by Einstein, of course, but everyone knows that time flies when in good company and moves extremely slowly during boring activities.

In conclusion, the infallibility of our cognitive faculties must certainly be denied and doubted, but the conceptual leap : they are not absolutely infallible -> therefore they are absolutely not reliable is not justified, in my opinion.

Hi, I’m a student from Russia and we’re having a philosophy of science course right now. Due to the language barrier and a lot of vague terminology I’m really struggling to understand what exactly it would be to talk about and what ideas should I focus on in the presentation. Here are the criteria for the project, if you have some free time and willing to help I would be immensely grateful. Criteria: While working in groups of 7 students will create a mind map and prepare the presentations of them.

Relying on Roy Bhaskar’s outline of critical realism create a mind map illustrating how the arguments and conceptions we have covered throughout the course are interconnected with each other.

The mind map should encapsulate at the very least 4 readings we have covered during the course. You do not need to summarize all of the readings to the equal extent. At the very least you need to mention them and show where exactly they are falling in “the space of positions” you have prepared.

You may find the examples of such “spaces” in the texts we have covered:

“In a succinct comparison of Hume, Carnap and Popper, Watkins points out that the growth of science is inductive and irrational according to Hume, inductive and rational according to Carnap, non-inductive and rational according to Popper. But Watkins's comparison can be extended by adding that it is noninductive and irrational according to Kuhn.” Imre Lakatos, 90.

What is crucial in such characterizations is that they are not neutral summaries of the texts. They are pointed towards some argument and clarify author’s own position.

Yours should also point towards some thesis. Your thesis and argument may start as an answer to the questions like: If we adopt Bhaskar’s critical realism, what does it highlight to us about other positions? Does it make some positions look similar? Why? Does it criticize the same concepts in them? Which parts of the arguments does it adopt and reject?

You may also use the conceptions we have covered during the lectures (irrationalism, realism, conventionalism, etc.)

It seems to me that every discourse about what exists, and how the things that exist are, implies the existence of something (us) that learns and speaks of such existence. Even formulas like "a mind-independent reality," describing "the universe as the universe would be if we didn’t exist," all make reference (through subtraction, through removal, but still) to something that interfaces with reality and the universe.

And if you respond to me: no, that’s not true, it’s illogical, we observe monism.. you are using concepts of negation and truth and logic and experience, which are arguably products of abstract reasoning and language, which postulate an "I think" entity. You do not respond to me: “stones and weak nuclear force and dextrorotatory amino acids.”

The opposite, of course, also holds. In the moment when the "thinking entity" says and knows of existence (even to say it doesn’t know it or cannot know it or doesn’t exist), it is thereby recognizing that something exists, and it is at least this saying something about existence, this “being, being in the world,” that precedes and presupposes every further step.

Some form of "subterrean" dualism (the distinction between the thinking/knowing subject and the things that are thought and known but do not dissolve into its thought/knowledge) seems inevitable, and a good portion of modern philosophy and the relationship between epistemology and ontology (how things are; how we know things; how we can say we know how things are) reflect this relation.

So: why is dualism so unsuccessful or even dismissed as “obviously wrong” without much concern?

Note: I’m not talking about dualism of "substances" (physical objects vs soul/mind) but about an operational, behaviorist dualism. We cannot operationally describe the mind/consciousness by fully reducing it to the objects it describes, nor can the objects be operationally fully reduced to the cognitive processes concerning them. That's not how we "approach" reality.

I've heard people say 'climate science isn't real science as it's not possible to control all variables in experimentation'. I was wondering if this meant that there was a single 'scientific method' that included controlled variables and dependent and independent variable for a scientific result. or is there more than this narrow definition? and if so what does it entail?

Hello there r/PhilosophyofScience community! I am looking to enter a master's program in some kind of theory-based field that will allow me to effectively communicate scientific issues and facilitate civilian science / public scientific literacy. For some background, I am about to leave a PhD program in chemistry - I entered with the goal of doing environmental research and reforming undergrad science curriculum, but I did not get into a lab for a variety of reasons (namely personality issues) and it is my best course of action to leave with my master's. I want to refine my rhetorical skills and be able to serve as a bridge between researchers, civilians, and possibly politicians/lawyers, whether that means working in reporting, academia, or some other field (I'm at the beginning of this transition so I do not have a clear idea of the job titles out there yet!). I have read online that science communication is a useful field to learn theory behind effective rhetoric (such as the information deficit model). I have heard from a professor in the field that philosophy of science is closely related, and both fields as well as possibly public policy/planning could all be good places to learn the rhetorical skills that I desire.

I also really like philosophy - I took multiple courses for undergrad electives and find the art of well-constructed arguments to be very undervalued (I would have considered a philosophy minor if I weren't already doing a double degree in chem and music). But I'm worried that if I commit to philosophy as a degree field that I will be choosing a degree based on personal interest instead of practical skills. So given all of this, does anyone have advice about a good degree path (or program even - I'm at UO Eugene right now and I've heard their philosophy of science is good) to suggest, or just a 2c about how these fields do and don't relate? Thanks so much for any advice, and sorry for the wall of text lol.

Tl:dr - I want to switch from a chemistry MA to a communication/rhetorical field and am curious about how philosophy of science and science communication relate to each other, and which would be more useful for intersectional work that aims to improve access and perspective of civilian science.

How do we ensure each life form is individual ??