Sit and talk about philosophy

It is expensive to be able to sit and talk about philosophy quietly. Research is more and more like an industry of publishing and a business of running projects. Finally I got myself back to the fundamental questions about what is science, what is knowledge and what is the “truth”.

The picture on p55 in the book Theory of Science by Gordana Doig-Crnkovic is a picture I should remember. Science is just part of our knowledge. The most inner cycle is the logic & mathematics, then goes to Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities, Art. They are nested. So knowledge is not only about science. And science is not about “truth”. There is only hypotheses according to Poper. .... (TBC)

Then what is good research? where is the line between science and technology? Maybe I have to go to Kuhn's books. So far, I understand that contemporary science means group work and knowledge for applications. You need experiments. Though Palto's distinctions between science and technology are still cited, partially they are not valid.

My opinions, you should do research in two directions, one is the results can be applicable (here I mean short time applications. Compared with other desciplines, such as humanities and social science, nature science is applicable) ; the other is the results help us to answer fundamental philosophy questions, about mind, language, intelligence, or to answer the wonders of human being about the universe. Maybe it is equivalent to say that your research should have good impact, scientifically or economically. Nowadays, the governments in the world more and more take science and technology as a weapon to develop economics, which is a way to keep people wealthy and keep the nation strong. So contemporary science has some pragmatic goals and motivations. It answers the question of “how”, not “why”.