Parisa Saatchi Fard; Keyvan Alasti
Abstract
In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions ...
Read More
In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions of people. Because intention has psychological nature, there is always a concern from empiricists that it may not be perceptible by third-person people. To some extent, many human actions are perceptible from a third-person point of view, and this causes them to be the subject of scientific investigations (with common scientific methods). However, there are cases that show the understanding of human activities from the third person of view has limitations.Stephen Grimm introduces a type of understanding and believes that by realising the specific goals of the person being understood as a desired action, we will achieve a deeper understanding. In this article, an attempt has been made to clarify the discussed issue first by proposing and interpreting Stephen Grimm's point of view, and then by proposing the problems and explaining the ambiguities of Grimm's idea, as an alternative formulation, we will show that the agent's decision for understanding or not understanding the actions of others, plays an important role. Empathy is known as a psychological capacity that can be understood in a different way by simulating the structure.Investigating and looking deeper into this issue will help us to judge it better as a method or an idea in social and human sciences.
saide bagheri; Shahin Iravani; Khosrow Bagheri NoaParast; Mohammd Reza Sharafi
Volume 7, Issue 13 , September 2017, , Pages 1-22
Abstract
This study consists of three parts: reviewing approaches in philosophy of science; presenting Mary Hesse’s hermeneutic approach and, finally, extracting Hesse's view on the understanding of scientific concepts. In order to clarify Hesse’s approach, we, in the first part, review the post-positivistic ...
Read More
This study consists of three parts: reviewing approaches in philosophy of science; presenting Mary Hesse’s hermeneutic approach and, finally, extracting Hesse's view on the understanding of scientific concepts. In order to clarify Hesse’s approach, we, in the first part, review the post-positivistic space of philosophy of science in the second half of the 20th century. In the second section, the models Hesse has proposed to explain the mechanism of science advancement and scientific theories are described. Emphasizing the explanatory function of metaphor in scientific theories, suggesting minimalistic realism as a requirement for scientific activity, and explaining the dual objectivity for science, are among the achievements of Hesse's view in philosophy of science. Scientific concepts have a certain place in Hesse's discussions, and it can be argued that, in Hessian approach, scientific concepts are historical and theoretical and can be used as metaphors in the metaphorical language of science. Finally, people's understanding of scientific concepts would be different according to the characteristics of the concepts. Also peoples’ understanding of scientific concepts is dynamic due to the dynamics of the language of science
