Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts

Friday, 25 September 2015

Science; what does it all mean?

For the penultimate post in his Night shelf series, Stephen Town revisits his undergraduate studies to find out how much has changed.



As the new academic year approaches, for the first time in forty-two years I will not be an active participant as it unfolds. I find myself in this situation increasingly drawn to recollection of my undergraduate experience, not in sentimental recollection, but through a continuing desire to learn and think within an academic community. Perhaps a retirement activity will be further study, and probably no better field to return to than the philosophy of science, having spent much of my professional life at the junction of science and humanities.

Lewens, T., The Meaning of Science, in the University Library at R 1 LEW

Lewens, T., The meaning of
Science. Pelican, 2015.
Tim Lewens is a professor in my old department of the History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge, so I was pleased to pick up this book to read on a long flight. This is a broad-ranging and relatively accessible introduction to the philosophy of science, delivered in the resurrected Pelican format. It covers a range of contemporary topics, including the currently much argued-over field of genetics, sociobiology and altruism in a chapter entitled “Human kindness”. My main interest was to see whether the fundamentals of the discipline had moved on, and I was both relieved and perhaps a touch disappointed to see that Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend still dominate the field and exercise similar fascination they had for us forty years ago. It was, however, quite sad to read that the current view of Kuhn’s paradigms seems so much weaker than in my day. Perhaps this is a reflection of overuse of the term over the intervening period, rather than an accurate reading of this seminal idea.

Feyerabend, P., The Tyranny of Science, in the University Library at R 1 FEY

Feyerabend, P., The tyranny
of Science. Polity, 2011.
Paul Feyerabend was (and perhaps still is, although now deceased) the enfant terrible of the philosophy of science, attacking rationalist views of science, providing critiques of the scientific method, and proposing that science is an anarchic enterprise. These views were attractive (and not just philosophically) to those of us involved in the student politics of the time, and there was great excitement at the publication of Feyerabend’s Against Method (1975) in the course of my studies. We have almost all of Feyerabend’s work in the library, but I am pleased to be able to fill a gap with one of his last works, written in 1993, but not published in English until 2011. I read this alongside Lewen’s book, and there is certainly a contrast in style, but both seek to challenge myths about science, and establish better understanding of its role and conduct in our age.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time

Stephen Town invites you to challenge your views on the Universe and physics as we know it, in the latest blog from his Nightshelf.


Unger, R., Smolin, L., The Singular Universe and Reality of Time, in the University Library at A13 UNG

Is time real? Can the past also be the future?
Image by Bonnyb. Reproduced from pixabay
This is an ambitious, controversial and probably difficult book for anyone who has not thought or read much about the nature of the Universe or taken a position on the debates about what the world we experience is made of and the laws that govern it (what the authors term ‘the foundational problems of basic science’). However it would be nice to think that any member of this University might feel inclined to at least give this work a try.

Unger and Smolin have been working for at least eight years on a new synthesis (in their words ‘a reinterpretation’) of twentieth-century cosmology and physics. This is accompanied by the recovery of the importance of the idea and methods of what used to be called ‘Natural Philosophy’. Smolin is a scientist reportedly considered tiresome and iconoclastic by his colleagues. Unger is a Harvard law Professor and politician. Both write their own piece in this book in their own style, and also reflect on their differences.

Is there a universe beyond our own?
Unger and Smolin argue the case for us being alone.

Their three main propositions run counter to current scientific views: that the Universe is singular; that time has reality; and that mathematics has only selective realism. Maybe you think these positions are common-sense and obvious? Or maybe you believe strongly in the current orthodoxy? Either way you want to read this book.