There was never of an indeed science âPhilosophy of Scienceâ â as a brunch of the ... In this list the first part, i.e. discovering substantive problems in the External.
There was never of an indeed science “Philosophy of Science” – as a brunch of the science “Philosophy” – because of there is practically no the science “mainstream philosophy” at all now. Though more correctly seems could be to call the mainstream philosophy as a “semi-science”, any science always is a simultaneous co-existence of the part “problems”, the process “solving problems”, and of “sets of solving problems”, i.e. essentially elaborated problems, which are resulted in created theories. In this list the first part, i.e. discovering substantive problems in the External [and internal necessarily, of course] to human’s consciousness World is very important; in mathematics there exist a rule “correctly formulated problem is the half of its solution”, and this rule is applicable to any other science. Including the philosophy started from observations and discovering utmost fundamental problems about the External/internal: first of all - what are the notions/phenomena “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Life”; and why they are as they are. For example – why everything in the External is uninterruptedly changing? “Why a human in some aspects understands what is happening in the External and that is indeed so or is some illusion?”, etc. But practically all these problems were discovered and firstly discussed yet in Antic times in appeared philosophical doctrines through the all humanity on Earth, further they was elaborated in minorities in Middle Ages; but that is all. Just in those times the philosophy became be “a semi-science, but not a non-science at all”, the recent mainstream added here nothing essential. The reason of this situation is clear: the raised philosophical problems relate to the Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena above, correspondingly they could not [and cannot now in the mainstream] principally defined/properly understandable inside the mainstream. Including the problems of the cognition of the External – when the science hasn’t substantive definition of “What is the External”, it is evident that this science cannot to understand something rational about It. Thus all mainstream “Philosophy of Science”/ Epistemology is really nothing more then a collection of rather banal rules – how some scientists should investigate the External, which concrete researches in concrete sciences at solving of concrete problems know much better then “brilliant” mainstream philosophers, since, unlike the philosophers, have concrete experience in the researches. So the real development of “usual” sciences proceeded and proceeds without any relation – what “Philosophy of Science” asserts; if in a scientific paper an author(s) refer to some one of huge number of existent and often opposite philosophical doctrines, that usually means that the paper doesn’t consist something new and actual for the science. A seems classical example – some application of the “Mach’s principle” as a “philosophical” ground of the relativity theories; when both – the principle and “discovered” in the SR/GR “real transformations of the space/time/spacetime” are some fantasies that have no relation to the reality. Correspondingly practically all/every mainstream philosophical publications that relate to the External are nothing else then re-writing of opinions of real scientists; which attempted, and again without a success, to elaborate fundamental problems, which quite naturally, of course, appear in the real sciences. The re-writing
is made “philosophical” by a mention of a number of Antic/Middle/recent “famous” philosophers, plus – publication contains usually some next “discovery” of author(s) – some new “realism”, “constructivism”, “constructive realism”, “post-realisms”, etc., etc., etc.; what is a trash that never was/is useful/interesting for real scientists. A next time – philosophy becomes be indeed science in the “The Information as Absolute” conception only, where the Meta-notions/phenomena above become be rationally defined/understandable/differentiated enough to become be rationally studied; including from the conception follow that in the reality there is no some fundamental interdisciplinary the cognition problems that should be studied outside concrete, sciences. Epistemology/ Philosophy of Science are superfluous at all. As well as the metaphysics/ontology isn’t in the reality a philosophical brunch, corresponding problems are subjects of study of “simply physics”; this situation, again, in the reality exists in the mainstream practically near 200 years, from the time, when the physics gone out the philosophy; that was/is inevitable, and the conception answers on the question – why that is so.. In https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317004387_About_the_Copenhagen_inter pretation_of_QM we noted, that indeed philosophical subject becomes be practically only “Ethics”, including – how some new scientific results are implemented in the sciences/scientific societies. This project turned out to be a good example of corresponding situation. All philosophical and physical papers, where the “The Information as Absolute” conception and following from the conception are presented were rejected by editors of a tens of mainstream philosophical and physical journals, though the papers don’t contain any logical errors or contradictions with experiments and they are evidently new actual. Including, for example, the quite evidently important result – in the conception/model it is shown that the SR/GR aren’t adequate to the reality and it is shown – what and how indeed happens in Matter. And in this project all what happened concerning to the conception and the model were a few unreasonable in fact but clearly negative comments, nothing more; when 90% of comments are rather far away even from the project’s topic, sometimes like a spam. Besides some people continue to pipe poisoning aerosols in rooms where I’m in the flat; this process didn’t “finish successfully” only because of I write time to time about this situation in the Net, and so they are seems limited in applicable substances, when applied ones till now were not efficient enough. But they continue to pipe, possibly hoping on a cumulative effect, knowing, including from this project, that members of “scientific community” will do nothing, if they obtain the result, since they make what these members want – to stop sharing information about the conception/model. And in this relation this project is indeed a rather good illustration – what is real “Philosophy of Science”, when it is applied to real situations in the science in real scientific society. Nonetheless I’m very grateful to Hossein Najafizadeh , it isn’t impossible that the SS comments not only the members of “scientific community” read. Cheers
