Creation of the scientific outlook (1)

Creation of the scientific outlook (1) Note: This book series (Towards a Descriptive Approach to Science: A Critique of Contemporary Philosophy of Science) for more see the book. In fact, sports science and the use of experience and experience had their own history before the scientific revolution, during the Middle Ages. But the idea was to remain isolated from university natural philosophy during this early period. John Henry a) I am not with a history that sharply separates the Middle Ages from the modern scientific revolution of the 17th century[2]. ... The modernist view of naturalistic thought, like some modern scholars, has been wrong, because: The achievements of the early modern period were based on the intellectual and institutional foundations laid in the Middle Ages, and much of the means used to answer them are the product of the work of medieval scholars.[1] According to Crane Brenton: "The transition from the school world, i. A largely Greek continuity, and somewhat innate, they "saw (Kona) in every sense of the Greek word Cosmos, i.e., every ordered regulator. They saw the various components of the physical universe tightly connected to each other, and linked by close ties to humans and to God. Their world was also woven together into a complex web of connections and correlations, each corner of which was filled with meaning, and rich in meaning. This perspective contrasts with that of contemporary scientists, whose increasing specialization narrows their focus to limited topics and isolated practices; whose approaches focus on analyzing rather than synthesizing means; and whose chosen views discourage questions of meaning and purpose. Modern means have succeeded in revealing vast amounts of knowledge about the physical world, but have also produced a fragmented and disconnected world that can make humans feel alienated, alienated from the modern world and annihilated from the reality of the universe. The most important of these are: the two giants of antiquity that cannot be ignored: Plato and Aristotle, and also of Christian theology".[4] Therefore, "there were no precise barriers that separated science, humanities, and man from each other; rather, they formed intertwined ways of exploring and understanding the world." Natural philosophy was studied at that time, but it was broader in scope and significance than the current concept of science. "The natural philosopher in the Middle Ages or in the age of scientific revolution studied the natural world and what modern scholars do. Natural philosophical views were gradually superseded by more specific and specialized (scientific) views during the 19th century."[5] (This is not surprising, because "during the whole Middle Ages, and much of the Renaissance, the Church represented the dominant intellectual authority over all of Europe, and the scholars of Europe in the Middle Ages, were clergymen as the groups with which ancient science was taught belonged to the Church".[6] We see this clearly in the writings of the English natural philosopher Robert Boyle (1627-1691), known for his work in chemistry (his apparent demonstratives are still learning Boyle's law that the volume of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure placed on it), that the world is like a "well-conceived romance novel".[7] His scientific researches considered "a kind of religious worship (and hence a kind of scholasticism) that deepensticismses the natural philosopher'sticism by thinking.[8] Theology is the property that we cannot grasp with our senses."[9] In "The Fundamental Motivation of Kepler's Work in Cosmology ... the fundamental motivation for Kepler's work in cosmology, which was an attempt to answer the question of why there are only six planets. This is not a scientific question, but an attempt to understand the significance of the number six".[10] In God's correction of Newton's planetary deviations, and in Descartes's foundation of his theory of knowledge (and therefore of science) on a metaphysical basis, he says that there is a false. So I do not find in Thomas Goldstein's statement that "the almost total decline of science in the early Middle Ages suggests that the most consistent and fertile scientific efforts feed on what we might call 'secular' orientation, a curiosity about nature that finds its roots in a secular cultural climate, one in which direct perceptuality plays a central or fully recognized role"[12] a correct reading of even that early period of science. The Greeks introduced new transformations in the Aristotelian scientific tradition[14], especially in the study of motion and the phenomenon of falling bodies, which is known as the theory of impulsivity.[16] Even "if for certain reasons the Greeks were unable to reject Aristotelian science altogether, they were alerted at least to its disadvantages and shortcomings, which would turn into a useful post-medieval treatise." It causes science to flourish in the West in the 16th century."[15] According to Bertrand Russell, "The Arabs were more inclined to experiment than the Greeks, especially in chemistry, as they hoped to convert cheap metals into gold, to discover the Philosopher's Stone, and to ride the elixir of life. This was one of the reasons for their appetite for chemical research. The idea of direct perceptualism and that "there was no room for scientific observation within the view of the early transcendental intermediate world"[17] versus "the Greek mind, which is the first mind to replace a mythical, or religious, view of the universe with rational explanations."[18] "Science seems to be growing less perceptive in cultures with a positive orientation toward the sense world, and it seems to be dissolving in cultures with a spiritual tendency, with a radical one."[19] From Bacon, through Descartes and Hobbes, to John Locke himself, it has been argued that the world derives its meaning and significance because it is reasonable. Even if the statement of innate principles is a hindrance, its role must be appreciated in relation to different social and situational factors. Just as many medieval and Renaissance scholars were theologians, no one can read Plato’s writings and hide the divine or at least idealistic dimension, the statement that the Greek mind is explanatory rather than mythical[22] is not true at all. In addition, the curriculum and tools of seminarians were the same during the Renaissance, says John Henry: "In fact, the mathematical sciences [i.e., the use of sport in science] and the use of experience and experience had their own history before the scientific revolution, during the Middle Ages. But the idea was to keep them isolated from university natural philosophy during this early period. It is a story of social and cultural changes that have led to the emergence of a social and intellectual situation for sporty or accomplished practitioners, and have allowed for the integration of what was once modest science and art with the elitist natural philosophy that developed in medieval universities. Science, modern or otherwise, requires an atheistic point of view – or, to put it milder, a scepticism – is a myth that emerged in the 20th century by people who wanted science itself to be a religion (so that they would be the priests of that religion). However, two important things must be noted: First, that the early period of science carried the proper social context for the flourishing of science. “By the 1700s, the most suitable of the sciences we would call natural science – then known as natural philosophy, except for mathematics – had reached a stage that facilitated Newton’s great synthesis. Most of the distinct scientific investigations, especially physics, astronomy, and physiology, had become, since the previous two centuries, representatives of the mature, if not of course, advanced, sciences. But as soon as the sixteenth century passed, scientists like Galileo began to shine among the artists of the Renaissance. The seventeenth century was not only the century of intellectual geniuses such as Newton, Harvey, Descartes, and Pascal, but also the century of the founding of major scientific societies such as the British Royal Society (1660) and the French Academy of Sciences (1660). of the Western world."[26] Second, there were indeed certain features that emerged during that period that represented a break between that period and the previous one. This break appeared gradually and mostly irrationally on the image of human life in that period, says Brenton: “The modern culture of Western society was formed between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. By the turn of the eighteenth century, the educated were not only men and women, but also many non-educated women, who began to believe certain beliefs about themselves and about the universe and about the message of man on earth. The central issue ... is that what European men and women believed most during the 18th century and beyond was at odds with some very important aspects of traditional Christian doctrine, or if you like, the Age of Enlightenment radically changed Christian doctrine."[27] But here I am interested in features that oppose the religious belief that prevailed in pre-philosophical societies in general, but before that a very brief summary of that early period of science is needed. [1] Lawrence M. Principe, The Scientific Revolution, A Very Short Introduction, Hindawi Foundation, translated by Muhammad Abdul Rahman Ismail, p. [2] Crane Brinton, Shaping the Modern Mind, Family Library, translated by Shawky Jalal, p. [3] Peter Dear (2001), Revolutionizing the Sciences (Basingstoke: Palgrave), P.2 [4] Principia, op. cit., p. [5] Ibid., p. 33 [6] Salem Vaif, Epistemology of Modern Science, Topkal Publishing House, p.16 [7] Pr ncipe, op. cit., p. [8] Ibid., p. [9] Ibid., p. [10] John Henry (2008), The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, 2rd ed., Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, P. 57 [11] Ibid, p. 86 [12] Thomas Goldstein, Historical Introductions to Modern Science, Family Library, translated by Ahmed Hassan Abdelwahid, p. [13] Salma Waft, op. cit., p. 18. Aristotle believed, as we shall see, that if a stone is not moved by an external force, it is either opposed to the idea of Perri, or it moves in a straight direction towards the center of the earth. This was a natural explanation for a large number of phenomena, but some phenomena were not valid for it, such as the true trajectory of the projectile, the stone when it leaves the hand of the ejector to push it vertically, but continues to move in the direction of the point where it was initially thrown to Paris. It is continuous and eternal. While Aristotle made stillness the origin, Peredan asserted that motion also lasts unless obstructed. So it is true that Newton took advantage of the school of impulsivity in his laws. [14] Salve, op. cit., p. [15] Nature of Unnatural Science 36 [16] Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook, Nobel Library, translated by Osman No , pp. 16-17 [17] Thomas Goldstein, op. cit., p. [18] Ibid., p. [19] Ibid., p. [20] See Social and Situational Factors in The Formation of the Modern Mind (previous reference) and The Expansion of Science by D. M. Turner. The Scientific Revolution is a very short introduction (previous reference) and the second chapter of The Historical Introductions of Modern Science (previous reference). For a glimpse of the beginnings of modern philosophy, see the second chapter of The History of Modern Philosophy by William Wright (previous reference). Park, K. and L. Daston eds (2006), The Cambridge History of Science. V3. Early Modern Science [21] Crane Brinton, op. cit., p. [22] See, for example, Plato's idea of divinity, of Mustafa al-Nashar. [23] John Henry (2008), P. 13 [24] Pr ncipe, op. cit., p. [25] Crane Brenton, op. cit., p. [26] Ibid., p. [27] Ibid., p. 105 - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-05 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/نشأة-النظرة-العلمية-1