Physical Science and Physical Reality PDF
Preview Physical Science and Physical Reality
PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND PHYSICAL REALITY PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND PHYSICAL REALITY by LOUIS O. KATTSOFF Harpur College State University of N.Y . • Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V. 1957 ISBN 978-94-017-5709-6 ISBN 978-94-017-6048-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-6048-5 Copyright I957 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Martinus NiJhof/, The Hague, Netherlands in I957 Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition I957 Alt right reserveă, incluăing the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form INTRODUCTION Any attempt to give a complete bibliography is doomed to failure. There are therefore undoubtedly many fine pieces not mentioned anywhere in this book. To their authors I apologize and plead the restrictions of time and the demands of exposition. What did not fit immediately and obviously into the points under discussion was not cited. The book is intended both as a text and as an expression of personal opinions. It is hoped that it will be useful to those who seek an introduction to the philosophy of science as well as those who seek insight into the nature of science and its contributions to our knowledge of the external world. No attempt is made, however, to pander to those whose ignorance of the results of science make an appreciation of science impossible. I have, therefore, assumed that my readers will know something about science and its history. The examples and illustrations have, however, been taken from elementary physics as far as possible. I have tried to avoid both popular science and entertaining history of science. This book is concerned with philosophical questions and issues and not with science proper or popular. I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor C. Hempel, whose influence will be evident even where I disagree with him. The earlier half of the manuscript was written while I was on sabbatical as a Research Fellow at Yale University (1954) and I attended Hempel's lectures. Mr. John Parker, Jr. very kindly helped read the proofs and made many valuable suggestions. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction v PART I INTRODUCTORY - THE NATURE OF SCIENCE I. Introduction to the Philosophy of Physical Science 3 II. Science as a Language 13 III. What Physical Science Talks about 26 PART II METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IV. The Nature of Explanation 41 V. The Nature of Scientific Statements, Laws 57 VI. The Origination and Confirmation of Laws: The Principle of Induction 72 VII. Truth and Probability of Laws 88 VIII. Causal and Non-Causal Laws 103 IX. The Nature of Hypotheses 117 X. Confirmation by Experimentation 132 XI. The Structure of Theories 148 PART III SEMANTICAL CONSIDERATIONS XII. The Vocabulary of Physical Science 165 XIII. Meaning of Scientific Terms 180 XIV. The Semantics of 'Space' 196 XV. The Semantics of 'Time' 212 XVI. Relativity-Motion 225 XVII. Matter-Quantum Theory 241 VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS PART IV META-PHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS XVIII. Causality 259 XIX. Presuppositions of Science 274 XX. Physics, Reality, and Perception 290 Indices 306 PART I INTRODUCTORY * THE NATURE OF SCIENCE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE 1 All attempts to write on the philosophy of science threaten to be wrecked on one or another now prominent hazards. A phi losophy of science may meet its doom either on the arid desert of a recapitulation of the development of science or in the ethereal swift flood waters of the efforts to harmonize religion and science. Yet both of these threats to a philosophy of science contain certain passages that must be kept clear if any philosophy of science is to be achieved at all. The history of science, from the philosopher's point of view, is important not because it gives credit where credit is due, which is the historian's task, but because it offers examples and paradigms of what science is like and what it is about. Compare the great and valuable histories of science by Thorndike and Sarton, carefully documented and exact in all details, with that of the equally valuable one by Dampier and the insights of Whitehead in Adventures of Ideas. A philosophy of science can easily get lost in the chronology of science while all it needs is the history of the development of science. The basis of both the conflicts between and the attempts to harmonize religion and science lies in the fact that the two are world-views and no matter how one glosses over their divergences they do differ. Science offers a way of looking at the world; so does religion. Traditionally, philosophy has concerned itself with world-views. "Atomism" is not a scientific term but a meta physical one as are "naturalism", "idealism", and the other school names. In some quarters in recent years philosophy has come to be not so much this as, rather, an analysis of the language used by people who talk about anything whatsoever. I do not wish to take issue with linguistic analysis in this book. I am indeed very tolerant. If there are those who desire to spend their days on 1 Unless otherwise indicated, when I speak of science I mean physical science. 4 THE NATURE OF SCIENCE linguistic problems connected with the sciences, I would not interfere even if I could. What they are doing is important and I intend to use their techniques and their results wherever it is appropriate to do so. But so far as I am concerned, philosophy ultimately busies itself with the construction of world-views and with their critical evaluation. What we call 'science' has many facets and many aspects. All of them are important but we do not want to pin the tail on anyone part and shout 'science.' One thing, however, seems perfectly clear to me at least: science does involve a way of looking at things and indeed a way of talking about that which concerns it-physical nature, in our case. It should be evident that at least this philosophy of science does not intend to restrict itself to methodological discussion alone or simply to linguistic analysis of the language of science. To me the 'philosophy of science' uses the term 'philosophy' in this more traditional sense of world-view. In other words, I believe that the philosophy of science is the metaphysics (comprising ontology, cosmology) and epistemology of science. Only by some such definition can the term 'philosophy of science' be given a meaning that will differentiate it from 'science' proper. From this point of view, moreover, the philosophy of science can enter into reciprocal relations - amicable, I hope - with science. It must absorb the results of science and it can offer methodological suggestions to science. But it does not need to be a postulate set for science from which specific matters of fact are to be derivable. Nor should one expect that philosophical issues are to be solved by going into the laboratory and setting up an experiment. The philosophical issues connected with science are about science, not in science. In the modern vernacular philosophical issues about science are meta-scientific and not scientific. Yet it remains true that the development of science is always the touchstone in terms of which to verify statements about science. In this sense the philosophy of science must be empirical and not merely tautological. The philosophy of science asks questions about science. It is therefore an attempt to understand it. But how do we know when we understand science? Let me hasten to say in what sense science is "based" on philosophy for in this way I can tell what I mean by under-
The list of books you might like
