Mehdi Golshani
Volume 8, Issue 15 , September 2018, , Pages 65-80
Abstract
From the view of Aristotle, Muslim philosophers and the Christian Philosophers of the middle ages, all sciences were under the umbrella of philosophy. But, after the development of modern science and the growth of empiricism, philosophy lost its glory and attention was given primarily to specialized ...
Read More
From the view of Aristotle, Muslim philosophers and the Christian Philosophers of the middle ages, all sciences were under the umbrella of philosophy. But, after the development of modern science and the growth of empiricism, philosophy lost its glory and attention was given primarily to specialized sciences. But during the second half of the twentieth century, the defects of empiricism became apparent and several trends emerged:(1) Some scholars mentioned that science can’t answer all questions of human concern and there is a need for a more general framework.(2) There was a movement towards interdisciplinary studies, and there was a revival of philosophy among scientists.(3) Positivists spoke of unified science, i.e. all sciences could be reduced to a single science, e. g. Physics.(4) Many distinguished scientists mentioned that different specialties should be pursued under a holistic view, so they recommended to look for a worldview that works as an umbrella for all sciences.
Mehdi Golshani; Mortaza Khatiri Yanehsari
Volume 7, Issue 14 , April 2018, , Pages 105-132
Abstract
The vision of most scientist and scholars in the first half of the twentieth century was empiricism. They gave more importance to observable experiences and phenomena, and the only valid criterion for them was observability of quantities. Although this view contributed to some advances in the twentieth ...
Read More
The vision of most scientist and scholars in the first half of the twentieth century was empiricism. They gave more importance to observable experiences and phenomena, and the only valid criterion for them was observability of quantities. Although this view contributed to some advances in the twentieth century, but its drawbacks and misunderstandings caused some proponents of this school to criticize it and to become against it. In this paper, the views of some of the most prominent contemporary physicists, who themselves became one of the followers of this school, is reviewed. We have also mentioned some of the great physicists who pointed out the most important criticisms agaist this school. Furthermore, we have explained the reasons for changing the view of physicists in line with positivism, based on logical criteria and philosophical reasoning. In the end, we look at the views of some of the contemporary physicists who have opposed positivism or have gone through positivism to deny the existence of God.
Javad Akbari; Mehdi Golshani
Volume 6, Issue 11 , September 2016, , Pages 1-36
Abstract
Since the publication of Scientific Image, van Fraassen has criticized scientific realism and, instead, introduced constructive empiricism as an appropriate alternative. Adhering to the tenet of empiricism that ‘experience is our only source of information about the world’, he considered ...
Read More
Since the publication of Scientific Image, van Fraassen has criticized scientific realism and, instead, introduced constructive empiricism as an appropriate alternative. Adhering to the tenet of empiricism that ‘experience is our only source of information about the world’, he considered acquiring any knowledge of the unobservable level of the world as impossible. According to van Fraassen, the realistic belief in the (approximate) truth of scientific theories has no epistemic basis; and, in this case, he only allowed belief in the empirical adequacy of these theories. The present assay explains and examines the key elements of constructive empiricism and contrasts it with scientific realism. We will indicate that van Fraassen’s argumentation in rejecting realism and defending his position is not able to provide the necessary and sufficient justifications for the replacement of scientific realism with constructive empiricism
Alireza Sobhani; Mehdi Golshani
Volume 5, Issue 9 , September 2015, , Pages 1-28
Abstract
In this paper two viewpoints about scientific theories will be introduced. These two viewpoints are: 1- received view and 2- semantic view about scientific theories. It should be emphasized that our major focus is on the semantic view to scientific theories. The first one, now, does not have any considerable ...
Read More
In this paper two viewpoints about scientific theories will be introduced. These two viewpoints are: 1- received view and 2- semantic view about scientific theories. It should be emphasized that our major focus is on the semantic view to scientific theories. The first one, now, does not have any considerable adherents and mainly logical positivist philosophers were its defenders. The received view has two important problems: 1- it is highly impractical that we want to formalize the scientific theories in the first order logic language and 2- its characterization of role and status of models in the scientific theories is inappropriate. We will notice that the semantic view, in particular the version that da Costa and French introduced, by its use of structure, can dissolve these problems and many problems that this view is involved with and this approach is in agreement with what scientists do in reality, in particular physicists try to model natural phenomena.
Alireza Sobhani; Mehdi Golshani
Volume 4, Issue 7 , October 2014, , Pages 109-137
Abstract
Cosmology started as a common ground for philosophy, religion, and science. In the Islamic culture, cosmology was either based on creation ex nihilo (the view of theologians) or on old universe (the view of philosophers), and the problem of multiverse was not mentioned so much. After the introduction ...
Read More
Cosmology started as a common ground for philosophy, religion, and science. In the Islamic culture, cosmology was either based on creation ex nihilo (the view of theologians) or on old universe (the view of philosophers), and the problem of multiverse was not mentioned so much. After the introduction of the so-called ‘anthropic principle’ in the early 1970’s, the idea of multiverse entered the realm of cosmology. There were two views among earlier Muslim thinkers concerning the creation of the universe. Muslim theologians believed in the temporal creation of the universe, but Muslim philosophers predominantly believed that our universe is temporally old. As far the uniqueness or multiplicity of universe of the created universe is concerned, there were different views about this among Muslim scientists, philosophers and theologians. Here we mention several views concerning the multiplicity of the universe among some well-known Muslim scholars.
Saeed Masoumi; Mehdi Golshani; Mohammad Mehdi Sheikh Jaberi
Volume 3, Issue 6 , February 2014, , Pages 73-98
Abstract
Multiverse and resorting to anthropic principle or reasoning within the multiverse scenarios has recently appeared in some physical contexts. In this paper, we first distinguish three kinds of multiverse paradigms in Lagrangian formulation for physical systems. We argue that multiverse can be a classical ...
Read More
Multiverse and resorting to anthropic principle or reasoning within the multiverse scenarios has recently appeared in some physical contexts. In this paper, we first distinguish three kinds of multiverse paradigms in Lagrangian formulation for physical systems. We argue that multiverse can be a classical effect, like the one appearing in string landscape, or a quantum effect, like the one in chaotic inflation models. We then critically review two arguments suggesting the necessity of abandoning the observability and/or testability criteria in the multiverse. We argue that such a viewpoint is not justified, as the characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is its experimental/observational confirmation. Therefore, multiverse scenarios can enter the realm of scientific theories only after becoming a testable theory. We also introduce a criterion for testability.
Seyyed Hedayat Sajadi; Mehdi Golshani; Amir Ehsan Karbasizadeh
Volume 2, Issue 3 , September 2012, , Pages 47-68
Abstract
This paper aims toward the formulation of unificationist approach in the development process of standard quantum mechanics (SQM) during the years 1913-1927, focusing on Bohr and Heisenberg as the two prominent founder scientists of ‘Copenhagen’ quantum mechanics. In this investigation, we ...
Read More
This paper aims toward the formulation of unificationist approach in the development process of standard quantum mechanics (SQM) during the years 1913-1927, focusing on Bohr and Heisenberg as the two prominent founder scientists of ‘Copenhagen’ quantum mechanics. In this investigation, we formulate various types of unificationist approaches involving reductionist, analogist, and holistic forms of unificationism, within Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s main works. Thus, one part of this paper is devoted to description and articulation of several kinds of unificationism from philosophical point of view. Another part is devoted to the conceptual and philosophical analysis of main works of Bohr (including atomic model, correspondence principle, and complementarily) and Heisenberg (Matrix mechanics and indeterminacy relations). This analysis includes origins, methods, contents, and consequences of their works on physics, in the specific period of SQM development.
