Azadeh Doustelahi; Mostafa Taqavi; seyed ali samadi
Volume 11, Issue 21 , June 2021, , Pages 47-62
Abstract
AbstractIn this article, we use Thagard's conceptual tree theory to explain the increase in the number of people with "Autism Spectrum Disorders." At first glance, the explanation for the increase in the number of cases of this disorder may be due to the actual increase in the number of people, for reasons ...
Read More
AbstractIn this article, we use Thagard's conceptual tree theory to explain the increase in the number of people with "Autism Spectrum Disorders." At first glance, the explanation for the increase in the number of cases of this disorder may be due to the actual increase in the number of people, for reasons that have not yet been identified. Or that medical professionals have developed more accurate tools for identification and screening. But this initial explanation for the increase in the number of people can also have complementary explanations, such as medicalization and conceptual change. In this article, we explain the conceptual change; In such a way that the increase in the number of cases is due to changes in the concept of this disorder, which results in the inclusion of new people who were not previously included in this spectrum. It is also cited as an alternative explanation for Paul Thagard's theory of the tree of conceptual change, in which he researched the conceptual hierarchical change of tuberculosis And by applying his theory, we show that the increase in the number of cases of autism spectrum disorders can be due to a change in the concept of autism, in addition to the possibility of an increase in the number of people and more accurate medical devices..
Mostafa Taqavi
Volume 8, Issue 15 , September 2018, , Pages 27-48
Abstract
In this paper, giving some examples of modern sciences, I will show that some theories have been influenced by naturalistic presuppositions and one can then explain the empirical data these theories seek to explain through a religious approach. Resorting to these examples, the advocates of religious ...
Read More
In this paper, giving some examples of modern sciences, I will show that some theories have been influenced by naturalistic presuppositions and one can then explain the empirical data these theories seek to explain through a religious approach. Resorting to these examples, the advocates of religious science want to show that just as presuppositions of science may be affected by naturalism so they may be influenced by religion, and therefore religious science is possible. In the final part of this paper, answering following questions regarding religious science, it is attempted to clarify some complexities of the debate: Does the idea of religious science endorse relativism indirectly? Religious science is justified by appealing to experience, or religion, or both? If appealing to religion is involved in the justification of religious science, does religious actions not involve in scientific activity? Does the possibility of religious science mean the lack of a distinctive border between science and religion? Evolution is a characteristic feature of scientific theories, and religious science is not an exception. Does the evolution of religious science not undermine religion? Does the argument for the possibility of religious science imply the possibility of religious science, in addition to the logical possibility of religious science? What perspective the proponents of religious science should define for their ideal?
mostafa taghavi
Volume 6, Issue 2 , April 2017, , Pages 1-14
Abstract
In the first of this three-part article, Feyerabend’s anarchistic theory of knowledge is briefly introduced. Here I explain why he is opposed to logical positivism, Popper’s philosophy of science, Lakatos and even Kuhn, and why he believes that science is not superior to other cognitive traditions. ...
Read More
In the first of this three-part article, Feyerabend’s anarchistic theory of knowledge is briefly introduced. Here I explain why he is opposed to logical positivism, Popper’s philosophy of science, Lakatos and even Kuhn, and why he believes that science is not superior to other cognitive traditions. Feyerabend emphasizes that ‘Anything goes’ is the only undying principle that can be derived from real science. The first part of the article paves the way for the clarification of the meaning of this key sentence in the third section. In fact, the first part should be considered as a representation of Feyerabend’s anarchistic thoughts. The second part, which presents the main idea of the article, explains that Feyerabend's anarchistic theory has its roots in his view on ‘being’, ‘man’ and ‘theory’. These three categories are closely interrelated: Man develops theories through which understands being. The second part, which describes the background of Feyerabend's anarchist theory, also indicates that the origins of his philosophy are not so much anarchistic. In the final part, some of the most important corollaries of Feyerabend’s thoughts such as ‘proliferation and tenacity’, ‘free society’ and ‘the difference between the respectable thinkers and inferior ones’ will be addressed.
Ali Azizi; Mostafa Taghavi
Volume 4, Issue 8 , March 2015, , Pages 59-74
Abstract
The viewpoints of Kuhn and Feyerabend, as two philosophers of science, are similar in many aspects, even the same in certain problems. They do not believe in any objective and universal rationality, hence, their views are regarded relativistic by many other philosophers. These two philosophers, belong ...
Read More
The viewpoints of Kuhn and Feyerabend, as two philosophers of science, are similar in many aspects, even the same in certain problems. They do not believe in any objective and universal rationality, hence, their views are regarded relativistic by many other philosophers. These two philosophers, belong to the second half of the twentieth century and are considered as a response to positivism and negativism. Despite the extensive correspondences, there are some significant differences between them. In this paper, we have tried to derive and analyze the criticisms of Feyerabend to Kuhn's viewpoint on science, such as critisizing the Kuhn's ideological approach to history, the domain of his incommensurability, the ambiguity in normativeness and descriptiveness of his ideas, unjustifiable transition from tenacity to proliferation, failure in discriminating between science and non-science via theoretical entities such as paradigm and normal science, and finally restricting the scientists’ freedom throughout the normal science.
