Epistēmē vs Science

Epoché Magazine, 2023

2021

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with the nature, scope of knowledge, basis, and its presuppositions. Modern science raises problems both the spiritual crisis and the ecological crisis. Both of these are due to the rationale that separates God from science. So that faith becomes weak and doesn't even exist at all. This paper will elaborate further on the epistemology of modern science, starting from the theory of knowledge in the form of sources and ways of obtaining knowledge, scientific methods, to measures of truth. This study is very important to be reexamined so that it strengthens the philosophical foundation related to science, then emerges various critical competencies in interpreting modern science. This library research is sourced from various references in the form of books, national and international scientific journal articles. The data collection technique is to conduct a review of the books and journal articles. The data obtained were processed b...

The aim of the paper is to show that, the hope we had and, some people still do have, that science will provide us the truth, concerning most important questions that are always bothering our minds, has now been transformed into a strong scepticism regarding the nature of science and scientific knowledge itself. In fact, the paper argues that science, instead of progressing towards the truth concerning reality, has taken the opposite direction and, deals with everyday mistakes it does. The number of mistakes, it does, are not just great but they are growing rapidly every day. This situation is keeping science busy with itself and does not leave room for it to deal with reality. Most of the scientific knowledge of one era becomes an illusion in the next one. Some of it may still be counted as knowledge but we are not sure whether it deserves to remain as such or, we still are unable to realize that, it is not more than an illusion. From the beginning of modern time till now the situation regarding our knowledge of reality has not improved in any important respect; in fact the situation is getting worse all the time. The process of learning and studying is not enlightening us at all about the true understanding of reality; on the contrary, it only strengthens our scepticism concerning the reliability of scientific claims.

The Incarnate Word, 2024

These thirteen paragraphs portray epistemology as the study, not directly of knowing as a human action (which could be considered the object also of anthropology) but as the study of the mode of being of the object in the subject and, in this sense, of intentional being. Moreover, intentional being is not understood as the being of the cognitional species or representation, which is real and subjective, but as the being of the known, as the presence of the known to the knower (obviously, through the species but a being not reduced to the subjective being of the species): this kind of being is the proper object of epistemology. Other considerations regarding the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology take place as well. As regards the method, this essay attempts to apply Aquinas’ four steps of scientific reasoning to epistemology, in the following fashion and order: 1- Solution of the problem of the universals by recourse to the theory of the agent intellect (resolutio secundum rem); 2- Definition of knowledge as intentional possession of being (res. sec. rationem); 3- Judgment of value regarding the different instances of human knowledge or critique of knowledge (compositio secundum rem) and 4- Reinterpretation (in the light of the previous path) of common notions of epistemology, such as truth, certainty, evidence, and error (comp. sec. rationem).

Crítica (México D. F. En línea), 1971

My aim in discussing two theories of scientific knowledge is to make a case for one being wrong and one being right. There would be little point in doing this if the wrong theory were not commonly accepted as the right one. I shall attempt to show, therefore, why the theory of scientific knowledge commonly taken to be correct is really mistaken, and why a theory often dismissed as mistaken is really correct. I adopt this approach as a means of focusing sharp attention on a dispute that, in my view, is of fundamental importance to the theory of knowledge. According to most philosophy textbooks, the two rival theories of scientific knowledge are associated with the names "rationalism" and "empiricism". These are not the alternatives I shall discuss, however. I shall assume that any acceptable or, today, even tempting theory of scientific knowledge must conform to the vague demands of empiricism. I say "vague demands of empiricism", because the essential spirit of empiricism-its critical, undogmatic charactermay be possessed by theories sharply opposed to the views actually held by traditional empiricists. For lack of better names, I shall provisionally dub the theories. I wish to discuss the "foundations" theory and the "no foundations" theory. The foundations theory views scientific knowledge as an organized structure resting on a foundation of basic certainty. The foundation is deemed necessary, because the substantive claims of a science are generally reached by a complicated

Synthese, 2010

In this paper I outline my conception of the epistemology of science, by reference to my published papers, showing how the ideas presented there fit together. In particular I discuss the aim of science, scientific progress, the nature of scientific evidence, the failings of empiricism, inference to the best (or only) explanation, and Kuhnian psychology of discovery. Throughout, I emphasize the significance of the concept of scientific knowledge.

2011

Penultimate draft of Introduction to a special issue of Discourse Studies V. 18, no. 2 on "The epistemics of Epistemics." The published draft is available through the journal Discourse Studies.