The periodic table poses a difficulty for both scientific realists and anti-realists. The anti-realist has difficulty accounting for the success of the table during a period in chemistry when many theories and concepts changed; the spatial relations of current tables in use do not show fundamental changes from the original tables proposed by Mendeleev. Yet, most versions of scientific realism are based upon the understanding that theories are some collection of written propositions or equations. The table as an image successfully functions very much like a theory: it is an organization of known facts, has been used to make predictions, and is plastic enough to accommodate unforeseen novel facts. Assuming the truth of the representational relations between the table and the world poses interesting issues for the realist. Ian Hacking's entity realism and the structural realism of several philosophers are both possible versions of scientific realism that fail to account for the table. Hacking's version fails in this case because the role of representation is central to understanding the history of the table; structural realism fails because it diminishes to much the role that first order properties have as they relate to the formulation of the second order relationships that comprise the table. Philip Kitcher of Science, Truth, and Democracy leaves himself open to two interpretations about the metaphysics of pluralism. One of these is indefensible; the other is quite well supported by the plurality of successful periodic tables. / Master of Arts

This study examines how two writers deal with demonic possession and exorcism in their written works that both have a common theme, the same alleged case of possession and exorcism. By comparing these written works I explore if the authors share any common or varying theories on possession and exorcism and investigate if the common theme of the two books has contributed to the authors writing similar books.My results show that the two authors deal with demonic possession and exorcism differently, one has theological views of the phenomena but is sceptical of their role in the alleged case, whilst the other believes that demonic possession and exorcism can be explained using scientific theories and that they are phenomena that played a part in the alleged case. The two books are quite different. I conclude that both writers’ theories of the phenomena are dependent on the existence of the phenomenon of religion.

No description available.

<p>Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Ernst Mach expressed his worries about obscurities and metaphysical elements in scientific knowledge, and consequently contributed to the development of a Viennese tradition. Later on, Vienna Circle further extended Mach's ideas and led to the development of the logical positivist movement. Among the main tenets of this movement is the view that scientific theories are to be reduced to an empirical base capable of conclusive verification. But scientific theories are usually based on unverified and occasionally unverifiable hypotheses and principles. Thus, once this is realized, positivism in spite of itself will contribute to the development of scepticism about scientific knowledge.</p> <p>In reaction to the verificationism, however, Karl Popper developed his thesis of falsificationism or fallibilism; but this principle also leads to scepticism at least about certainty claims, with far reaching consequences. This chain of events leads to the development of Paul Feyerabend's epistemological anarchisma a rejection of all rules and methods in science in an attempt to reduce science to the level of irrationality and mythology.</p> <p>Against the negativist conclusions of these positions about science, the integrity of scientific knowledge is defended in this thesis. It is shown how scientific knowledge can be defended against scepticism of the type to which verificationism tends: this is done by examining one recent and rigorous sceptical position which undermines not only certainty and rationality of knowledge claims, but the very possibility of knowledge. By examining Popper's fallibilism, it is shown that science can also be defended against the negativist conclusions of fallibilism. Similarly, it is shown that Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism cannot either undermine scientific knowledge.</p> <p>These negativist positions, though they have received strong criticisms in some quarters, yet have not been examined all together, from the standpoint of their impact on the integrity of scientific knowledge. This task is undertaken in this thesis; we thus arrive at a positive and correct evaluation of scientific knowledge in the context of contemporary negativist epistemological trends. It has been shown that in spite of all the negativist arguments of the above positions, we can obtain certainty, justification, and truth in science, and thus we can obtain knowledge. But my rejection of negativism in science does not entail, and should not be construed as an advocacy of a return to, positivism.</p> / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Many prominent scientists have pointed out that philosophy is of no benefit to science. Stephen Hawking asserts: Philosophy is dead! Sciences use conceptions like natural laws, matter, nature, theories, etc. But science is also confronted with questions such as: "What is a natural law?" "What is nature?" "What is matter?" and "What is a scientific theory?" These (metatheoretical) questions exceed the sphere of competence of science – they are items of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is a metatheory of science. The Philosophy of science overlaps epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are true, or whether entities like quarks or electrons really exist. More detailed investigations bring various questions into consideration such as: "How do we define the boundaries between different scientific disciplines?" "Is there a relation between the beauty and the truth of a scientific theory?" and "How do we distinguish between science and pseudoscience?" Additionally, the philosophy of science is concerned with ethical problems of modern technology, with the methodological questions, with the reconstruction of the structure and the development of scientific theories, and with revealing of any indoctrination of science. The optimistic conclusion of this paper is: Philosophy is still alive – but the philosopher has to participate in round-table discussions with scientists. We just want philosophers talking to scientists!

Many prominent scientists have pointed out that philosophy is of no benefit to science. Stephen Hawking asserts: Philosophy is dead! Sciences use conceptions like natural laws, matter, nature, theories, etc. But science is also confronted with questions such as: "What is a natural law?" "What is nature?" "What is matter?" and "What is a scientific theory?" These (metatheoretical) questions exceed the sphere of competence of science – they are items of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is a metatheory of science. The Philosophy of science overlaps epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are true, or whether entities like quarks or electrons really exist. More detailed investigations bring various questions into consideration such as: "How do we define the boundaries between different scientific disciplines?" "Is there a relation between the beauty and the truth of a scientific theory?" and "How do we distinguish between science and pseudoscience?" Additionally, the philosophy of science is concerned with ethical problems of modern technology, with the methodological questions, with the reconstruction of the structure and the development of scientific theories, and with revealing of any indoctrination of science. The optimistic conclusion of this paper is: Philosophy is still alive – but the philosopher has to participate in round-table discussions with scientists. We just want philosophers talking to scientists!

本研究旨在探討，基於知識翻新教學（knowledge building pedagogy）所建立的電腦支援協作學習環境，能否協助提昇學生對科學理論本質的理解。研究對象為52位修習「自然科學概論」課程的大學生。教學設計以知識翻新教學法為原則，並輔以知識論壇（Knowledge Forum）線上合作學習平台。 資料來源包括：（1）學期前後對科學理論本質理解之開放式問卷；（2）平台討論內容；（3）平台活動量(包括貼文數、回文數等數據資料等)。資料分析採用質性內容分析法及量化成對T考驗、卡方考驗等方式。 研究結果指出：(1)經由知識翻新教學，學生於學期後對科學理論本質理解產生顯著轉變。學生對科學理論本質的觀點，在期初較偏向邏輯實證主義：認為理論主要來自於對自然界的觀察、發現；或視理論為絕對客觀、正確的實驗結果；或認為理論主要是經由科學家個人所產生，並且是一種具有權威性且不可改變的存在。然而，在期末時，學生對理論本質的理解則轉變為比較建構取向的理解：認為理論是科學家或科學社群的發明，其結果受社會與人文因素等影響；或認為理論本身可以透過某些標準被評價，例如解釋力、適當性、邏輯流暢度等，因此理論能夠被不斷翻新修正。(2)學生在學習平台上進行探究活動中呈現的科學概念層次隨時間經過而不斷進步。學生在後半學期能使用更明確而具體的科學訊息、證據，對議題進行討論。(3)最後，學生對科學理論本質理解的轉變，以及其科學探究概念層次的高低，皆與其在平台活動量（如參與程度等）有正向關連。 針對上述結果，本研究提出相關討論與建議，以供現場教師或未來研究者之用。 / The aim of this study was to investigate whether students can develop a better understanding of the nature of scientific theories after engaging in a computer supported collaborative knowledge building environment. Participants were 52 undergraduate students who took a course about nature sciences. The instruction of this course was designed based on knowledge building pedagogy, using Knowledge Forum as a tool for students to construct their theories about scientific phenomena through online collaboration. Data sources included: （1） a pre-post open-ended questionnaire that investigated students’ understanding of the nature of scientific theories; （2） the content of an online forum in which students posted their ideas; （3） students’ activities in the forum, for instance, number of students’ notes contributed, or number of notes built-on to each other’s notes. Data were analyzed through both qualitative and quantitative methods. From a qualitative perspective, we used content analysis to evaluate the quality of students’ discussion; from a quantitative perspectivea, paired t-test and chi-square were used to examine students’ change of views regarding the nature of scientific theories after the course. The results showed that after a semester, students were able to develop a more constructivist-oriented view toward the nature of scientific theories. Their view shifted from a more positivist-oriented perspective to a more constructivist-oriented one. Further, the finding showed that there was significant improvement in students’ scientific inquiry as reflected in the progressively more sophisticated levels of the scientific concepts discussed online. Moreover, it was found that there was a statistically significant, positive correlation between students’ enhanced understanding of the nature of scientific theory and the intensity of students’ online activities. Additionally, the results also indicated that there was a significant, positive correlation between the depth of students’ scientific inquiry ( as reflected in the concepts inquired and discussed online) and the extent of students’ online activities. Some further suggestions and implications were also discussed in the study.

Abîme : gouffre, enfer, chaos. En marge de la civilisation occidentale, ténébreuses et dévalorisées, les profondeurs marines furent pensées et expérimentées au cours du XIXe siècle. Sur le pont du navire, le naturaliste s’appropriait les techniques de pêche et fouillait les antres d'un univers obscur pour récolter une faune méconnue.Cette thèse démontre l'importance de diverses influences, provenant de contextes différents, qui modelaient les théories au sujet de l'existence de vie dans cet univers. L'idée d'une vie limitée, à partir d'un certain niveau de profondeur, domina, notamment avec la théorie azoïque (1843) du Britannique Edward Forbes (1815-1854). Selon nous, elle formait un horizon ultime, telle une finitude anthropomorphique appliquée à la répartition des animaux. Par la suite, la représentation d'une vie présente en tous lieux – une « vie triomphante » – la remplaça au cours de la décennie 1860 pour former la base de notre savoir actuel, à un moment où l'abîme était perçu tel un antre du passé hébergeant des « fossiles-vivants ». Ces représentations constituaient les réverbérations d'une culture et d'intérêts que nous explicitons.Ce travail révèle également une focalisation des savants sur certains objets, comme le fond marin, repère fixe perçu par un filtre terrestre couplé à une analogie avec l'altitude. Le visage bathymétrique de l'océan profond se dessinait alors, tandis que le câble télégraphique devenait une interface de renouveau pour le savoir propre à l'abîme. Une volonté d'ériger un panorama absolu de l'océan parcourait cette période, cela par une extrapolation horizontale (toutes mers) et verticale (toutes profondeurs) de quelques observations relevées. / Abyss : chasm, hell, chaos. On the fringe of the western civilization, the marine depths were regarded as impenetrable and were depreciated before being studied during the 19th century. At sea, the naturalist took over fishing techniques and rummaged through a dark universe to collect an unknown fauna.This thesis shows the importance of the various influences that shaped the scientific theories about the existence of life in the abyss.The idea of a limit for marine life, beneath a given depth, dominated, notably using the azoic theory (1843) of the British Edward Forbes (1815-1854). According to us, this theory was a “final horizon”, that is to say an anthropomorphic finitude placed on the animal distribution. Later, the representation of a life inhabiting every place – a “triumphant life” – replaced it during the 1860s to form the basis of our current knowledge, at a time when the abyss was regarded as a “lair of the past” containing “living-fossils”. These representations were reflections of a culture and of interests.This work also reveals that the scientists focused on some objects like the seabed, which was a fixed mark considered through a terrestrial view linked to an analogy with altitude. The bathymetric face of the ocean emerged while the submarine cable became an “interface of revival” for the knowledge about the abyss. The will to design an “absolute panorama” of the ocean was present in this period, using horizontal (every sea) and vertical (every depth) extrapolations from a few facts.

Many prominent scientists have pointed out that philosophy is of no benefit to science. Stephen Hawking asserts: Philosophy is dead! Sciences use conceptions like natural laws, matter, nature, theories, etc. But science is also confronted with questions such as: "What is a natural law?" "What is nature?" "What is matter?" and "What is a scientific theory?" These (metatheoretical) questions exceed the sphere of competence of science – they are items of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is a metatheory of science. The Philosophy of science overlaps epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are true, or whether entities like quarks or electrons really exist. More detailed investigations bring various questions into consideration such as: "How do we define the boundaries between different scientific disciplines?" "Is there a relation between the beauty and the truth of a scientific theory?" and "How do we distinguish between science and pseudoscience?" Additionally, the philosophy of science is concerned with ethical problems of modern technology, with the methodological questions, with the reconstruction of the structure and the development of scientific theories, and with revealing of any indoctrination of science. The optimistic conclusion of this paper is: Philosophy is still alive – but the philosopher has to participate in round-table discussions with scientists. We just want philosophers talking to scientists!:I. Über die Kompetenz und Inkompetenz von Philosophie 09 II. Philosophie und Wissenschaft 12 III. Philosophische Rückverweise in den Naturwissenschaften 15 IV. Kompass wissenschaftsphilosophischer Kompetenz 26 01. Ontologische Kompetenz 28 02. Epistemologische Kompetenz 28 03. (Meta-)Methodenkompetenz 29 04. Kompetenz der logisch-begrifflichen Analysen 30 05. Metaphysische Kompetenz 30 06. Begründungskompetenz 31 07. Kompetenz der philosophisch motivierten Antizipation 33 08. Rekonstruktionskompetenz (historisch und systematisch) 34 09. Die Abgrenzungskompetenz 38 10. Grenzziehungskompetenz 38 11. Antinomien- und Krisenmanagement-Kompetenz 39 12. Kooperationskompetenz 42 13. Ethische Kompetenz 42 14. Deideologisierungskompetenz 45 15. Ästhetische Kompetenz 46 16. Inkompetenzdestruktionskompetenz 51 Ausblick 53 Abkürzungen 55 Literatur 55

Many prominent scientists have pointed out that philosophy is of no benefit to science. Stephen Hawking asserts: Philosophy is dead! Sciences use conceptions like natural laws, matter, nature, theories, etc. But science is also confronted with questions such as: "What is a natural law?" "What is nature?" "What is matter?" and "What is a scientific theory?" These (metatheoretical) questions exceed the sphere of competence of science – they are items of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is a metatheory of science. The Philosophy of science overlaps epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are true, or whether entities like quarks or electrons really exist. More detailed investigations bring various questions into consideration such as: "How do we define the boundaries between different scientific disciplines?" "Is there a relation between the beauty and the truth of a scientific theory?" and "How do we distinguish between science and pseudoscience?" Additionally, the philosophy of science is concerned with ethical problems of modern technology, with the methodological questions, with the reconstruction of the structure and the development of scientific theories, and with revealing of any indoctrination of science. The optimistic conclusion of this paper is: Philosophy is still alive – but the philosopher has to participate in round-table discussions with scientists. We just want philosophers talking to scientists!:I. Über die Kompetenz und Inkompetenz von Philosophie 09 II. Philosophie und Wissenschaft 12 III. Philosophische Rückverweise in den Naturwissenschaften 15 IV. Kompass wissenschaftsphilosophischer Kompetenz 26 01. Ontologische Kompetenz 28 02. Epistemologische Kompetenz 28 03. (Meta-)Methodenkompetenz 29 04. Kompetenz der logisch-begrifflichen Analysen 30 05. Metaphysische Kompetenz 30 06. Begründungskompetenz 31 07. Kompetenz der philosophisch motivierten Antizipation 33 08. Rekonstruktionskompetenz (historisch und systematisch) 34 09. Die Abgrenzungskompetenz 38 10. Grenzziehungskompetenz 38 11. Antinomien- und Krisenmanagement-Kompetenz 39 12. Kooperationskompetenz 42 13. Ethische Kompetenz 42 14. Deideologisierungskompetenz 45 15. Ästhetische Kompetenz 46 16. Inkompetenzdestruktionskompetenz 51 Ausblick 53 Abkürzungen 55 Literatur 55