The Problem of Understanding of Nature in Exact Science
In this short inquiry I would like to defend the statement that exact science deals with the explanation of models, but not with the understanding (comprehending) of nature. By the word ‘nature’ I mean nature as physis (as a self-moving and self-developing living organism to which humans also belong...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Estonian Association of the History and Philosophy of Science
2014-10-01
|
| Series: | Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.bahps.org/06_Napinen-2014-2-06.pdf |
| Summary: | In this short inquiry I would like to defend the statement that exact science deals with the explanation of models, but not with the understanding (comprehending) of nature. By the word ‘nature’ I mean nature as physis (as a self-moving and self-developing living organism to which humans also belong), not nature as
natura naturata (as a nonevolving creature created by someone or something). The Estonian philosopher of science Rein Vihalemm (2008) has shown with his conception of phi-science (φ-science) that exact science is itself an idealized model or theoretical object derived from Galilean mathematical physics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2228-2009 2228-2017 |