Zahra Zargar
Abstract
In many cases, pseudosciences are developed by people who have scientific credit. Therefore, the importance of recognizing pseudoscience from proto-science and bad science is acknowledged in the recent literature about the Demarcation problem. By emphasizing this point, this paper focuses on what makes ...
Read More
In many cases, pseudosciences are developed by people who have scientific credit. Therefore, the importance of recognizing pseudoscience from proto-science and bad science is acknowledged in the recent literature about the Demarcation problem. By emphasizing this point, this paper focuses on what makes difference between pseudoscience and legitimate or fruitful scientific dissents. To suggest an answer, I appeal to Solomon’s social empiricism and her decision vector model. She defines a decision vector as everything that affects the output of a decision. Decision vectors include social, political, theoretical, or empirical factors that in a social level facilitate or hinder the development of a theory in a scientific society. Solomon employs this concept to suggest a normative framework for distribution of research efforts. According to this framework, a scientific dissent is useful for scientific progress, if the distribution of research efforts is proportional to the empirical success of all rival theories. By applying this framework to the case of Lysenkoism, I explore the implications of Solomon’s model for the problem of differentiating usual scientific dissents from pseudoscience. Then, I discuss the advantages of this analysis over the other theories of pseudoscience.
Ghasem Khabbazian; Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Etemadoleslami
Abstract
In descriptive terms, metaphors are widely used in scientific discourse, including scientific explanations. However, the fact that metaphorical explanations are justified explanations needs to be analyzed. According to the dominant approach, a justified scientific explanation must be both understanding-enhancing ...
Read More
In descriptive terms, metaphors are widely used in scientific discourse, including scientific explanations. However, the fact that metaphorical explanations are justified explanations needs to be analyzed. According to the dominant approach, a justified scientific explanation must be both understanding-enhancing and true. The fundamental challenge regarding the truth of metaphorical explanations is that metaphorical propositions are considered false because they do not correspond to reality, while scientific explanations are expected to be true. In this study, we first show how metaphorical explanations enhance understanding using Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of conceptual metaphors. Then, we argue how, in addition to understanding-enhancing, metaphorical explanations can be accepted as true according to this theory. The latter argument relies on the fact that understanding takes primacy over truth and often relies on metaphor. Finally, we attempt to refine and strengthen the position of the truth of metaphorical explanations through four paths that we have called argument from dead metaphors, argument from partial versus complete correspondence, argument from epistemic cost, and argument from curve fitting.
Faeze Eskandari; Razieh Borjian
Abstract
Throughout intellectual history, the concept of “time” has always been regarded as one of the most fundamental ontological notions, inviting philosophical, religious, and scientific inquiry. Each intellectual tradition offers a unique narrative of time. If time is studied as a multidimensional ...
Read More
Throughout intellectual history, the concept of “time” has always been regarded as one of the most fundamental ontological notions, inviting philosophical, religious, and scientific inquiry. Each intellectual tradition offers a unique narrative of time. If time is studied as a multidimensional phenomenon (not as an abstract concept), its traces become evident in Western philosophical thought, Islamic philosophical texts, and the laws of classical physics. This article employs a descriptive-analytical method to study the characteristics of the concept of time in Western philosophers’ (Plato, Aristotle), Islamic philosophers’ views (Ibn Bājja, Ibn Rushd), and Newtonian physics to elucidate their similarities and distinctions. A comparative analysis of the concept of time in these three frameworks—Western philosophy, Islamic wisdom, and Newtonian physics—reveals both shared and divergent dimensions, yielding a deeper understanding of time’s complex nature. Thus, this paper seeks to address the following question: How have philosophical definitions of time and the derived concepts paved the way for Newton to describe time based on mathematical choices? The findings of this research lead to a comparative framework that juxtaposes the aforementioned philosophers’ views with Newton’s and demonstrates their direct and indirect influences on Newtonian physics.
Navid Ravan; Faezeh Vahidi; Hamidreza Namazi
Abstract
Traditional pharmacy and pharmacognosy are two separate academic fields. They are among the PhD courses in the pharmacy discipline in Iran. Traditional pharmacy focuses on studying traditional pharmaceutical texts and producing and evaluating traditional remedies. In contrast, pharmacognosy is the science ...
Read More
Traditional pharmacy and pharmacognosy are two separate academic fields. They are among the PhD courses in the pharmacy discipline in Iran. Traditional pharmacy focuses on studying traditional pharmaceutical texts and producing and evaluating traditional remedies. In contrast, pharmacognosy is the science of extracting, identifying, and studying the therapeutic effects of active compounds found in natural products. The key similarity between these two fields is their use of natural products. However, their distinction lies in their approach to the research methodology on the therapeutic effects of these compounds and their approach toward finished product development. At the academic level, these two fields engage in significant controversies that can shed light on insightful aspects of the relationship between pharmacy and natural products. This study employs a controversy analysis method to identify and analyze 9 peripheral and 3 core controversies. The peripheral controversies cover chemical/herbal, synthetic/natural, formulated/unformulated substance, global standard/local standard, purification/intact compounds, mechanism/evidence, materialistic/spiritualistic, discipline/ field, and professionalism/deprofessionalization. The core controversies, rooted in the philosophical assumptions of each domain, include controversies on intervention in nature/returning to nature, reductionism/holism, and academic knowledge/general-historical knowledge. Analyzing controversies in these academic domains contributes to portraying the position of each discipline from the perspective of the philosophy of science and recognizing their divided missions.
nasrollah keshavarz; hadi samadi
Abstract
Abstract:This article explores the gap between the scientific understanding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their public acceptance. Despite assurances from scientists and credible research centers about the safety of GMOs, many people remain reluctant to consume these products. The article ...
Read More
Abstract:This article explores the gap between the scientific understanding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their public acceptance. Despite assurances from scientists and credible research centers about the safety of GMOs, many people remain reluctant to consume these products. The article delves into the disconnect between scientific findings and public perceptions. It discusses the established consensus on GMO safety and the lack of experimental evidence proving any harm to human health or the environment, while also examining societal views on GMOs across different demographics, including gender, education, age, ideology, and political beliefs. One potential explanation for this divide is a general distrust of science. However, public opinions shift significantly when discussions involve different scientific topics. Given cognitive biases like confirmation bias, distrust alone doesn't fully explain public hesitation. The article aims to provide insight by discussing the role of "fast thinking" versus "slow thinking" in decision-making processes and examines how intuitive understanding often takes precedence over scientific understanding, highlighting the concept of bounded rationality.
Zeinab Khaleghi Cheshme Sabz; Alireza Monajemi
Abstract
In contemporary societies, the increasing diversity of daily life needs and challenges has rendered psychological consultation a widespread phenomenon, addressing a broad spectrum from work stress management and family conflict resolution to life crises, self-awareness improvement, and personal growth; ...
Read More
In contemporary societies, the increasing diversity of daily life needs and challenges has rendered psychological consultation a widespread phenomenon, addressing a broad spectrum from work stress management and family conflict resolution to life crises, self-awareness improvement, and personal growth; this article analyzes and critiques Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) as the predominant approach in counseling and psychotherapy through a philosophical lens, framing it as a form of psychological technology. Utilizing Albert Borgmann's theoretical framework, it demonstrates that CBT aligns with the "device paradigm"—a standardized approach that, despite structured efficacy, reduces the depth of human experience, neglects socio-cultural contexts, and renders the therapeutic relationship mechanical. Subsequently, employing Borgmann's concept of the focal thing and practices, the article proposes reform strategies: strengthening authentic therapeutic relationships through empathy and active participation, integrating mindfulness to enrich lived experiences, utilizing group CBT to revitalize social bonds, and designing meaningfully interactive digital tools. These transformations shift CBT from a technically reductive instrument of instrumental rationality toward a focal practice that alleviates symptoms while enriching human relationships in family and society. Finally, acknowledging the limitations in Borgmann's approach, the article emphasizes the need to integrate it with Don Ihde’s postphenomenology and Feenberg’s critical theory of technology to better encompass the cultural and contextual dimensions in contemporary psychotherapy.
farideh lazemi; Mohammad Asghari
Abstract
The debate over FREE WILL is among the oldest and most fundamental challenges in philosophy, reaching a peak in the eighteenth century, particularly in the works of David Hume. This article, entitled “Reimagining the Debate on FREE WILL: From the Eighteenth Century to Contemporary Cognitive Science” ...
Read More
The debate over FREE WILL is among the oldest and most fundamental challenges in philosophy, reaching a peak in the eighteenth century, particularly in the works of David Hume. This article, entitled “Reimagining the Debate on FREE WILL: From the Eighteenth Century to Contemporary Cognitive Science” seeks to reinterpret this confrontation between FREEDOM and necessity in the light of current findings in cognitive science and neuroscience. The central question is whether recent empirical research — such as studies on decision-making, action prediction, and mental causation — can support or undermine the possibility of FREEDOM OF WILL.The main thesis is that Hume’s compatibilist framework, emphasizing the harmony between causal necessity and the human capacity to act on reasons, still provides a crucial resource for addressing contemporary scientific debates. The method is analytical–comparative: on the one hand, the concepts and arguments of Hume and other eighteenth-century thinkers are examined; on the other, these ideas are revisited in light of cognitive science and neuroscience.The findings indicate that a compatibilist reading of FREEDOM OF WILL remains resilient to empirical challenges and can help reconceptualize notions of necessity, control, and moral responsibility within the dialogue between philosophy and science. Thus, the long-standing debate does not end but instead opens new horizons in the context of contemporary sciences.
Emad Tayebi
Abstract
Any modeling of technology transfer is based on a concept of technology. The idea that considers technology merely the physical structures of technical artifacts seeks the physical transfer of these artifacts in technology transfer. In this article, we show that although the evolution of technology transfer ...
Read More
Any modeling of technology transfer is based on a concept of technology. The idea that considers technology merely the physical structures of technical artifacts seeks the physical transfer of these artifacts in technology transfer. In this article, we show that although the evolution of technology transfer models shows their attention to the context and some cultural and social dimensions, they still suffer from some vague or incorrect assumptions. This is due to a conceptual confusion about technology and the lack of an integrated philosophical theory. To address this lack, we propose a philosophical theory of technology using the literature on the philosophy of technology. According to this theory, technology is a plan or solution to technical problems that is used by intentional agents to achieve goals and in which the causal power of physical or social reality is used. Hence, technology transfer involves creating similar intentions, employing similar plan, and transferring or creating similar artifacts to apply its causal power in the destination situation. This approach focuses our attention on the intentions, values, and norms of the destination society, creating social artifacts such as appropriate institutions or laws, the need for related technologies in the destination society, the need to reconstruct the technical plan proper to the destination situation, and other matters. These aspects remind us that before facilitating technology transfer, one must pay attention to the criticism of technology transfer.
Ali Shamsi; Keyvan Alasti
Abstract
Max Weber's methodology, influenced by the Southwest Neo-Kantian school, emphasizes the distinction between natural sciences (Naturwissenschaft) and cultural sciences (Kulturwissenschaft). This distinction also relates to the general approach of interpretivists, who differentiate between the human sciences ...
Read More
Max Weber's methodology, influenced by the Southwest Neo-Kantian school, emphasizes the distinction between natural sciences (Naturwissenschaft) and cultural sciences (Kulturwissenschaft). This distinction also relates to the general approach of interpretivists, who differentiate between the human sciences by understanding the meaning of human actions and the natural sciences by explaining them through causal laws. However, Weber used the words "causality" and "causal analysis" for his sociological analysis, and since explanation (in the most common definition) means the expression of cause, the idea has been created that Weber's method in cultural sciences has become more similar to the natural sciences through his focus on causal analysis. In this article, we argue that Weber’s form of causal analysis remains committed to the Neo-Kantian distinction between the cultural sciences and the natural sciences. To support this, after describing Weber's methodology and causal approach, and comparing Weber's account with other philosophers who have offered interpretations of singular causation (e.g., David Lewis), we will demonstrate that the analysis of singular causation has features that can still uphold Weber’s distinction between the natural sciences and the cultural sciences. Finally, we aim to provide a criterion for differentiating these two types of science based on Weber's perspective.
Saeedeh ُShahmir; Abdollah Nasri
Abstract
This paper seeks to provide a clear account of the problem of primary and secondary qualities in Descartes’ philosophy. Alongside his other metaphysical claims, Descartes acknowledges three substances—mind, God, and matter—and maintains that material substance possesses only one essential ...
Read More
This paper seeks to provide a clear account of the problem of primary and secondary qualities in Descartes’ philosophy. Alongside his other metaphysical claims, Descartes acknowledges three substances—mind, God, and matter—and maintains that material substance possesses only one essential attribute, namely extension. In his view, everything that exists is composed of particles of matter, and these particles are defined by specific geometrical properties such as size, motion, and shape. Descartes designates these properties as the “real qualities” of matter. While his conception of “primary or real qualities” is relatively explicit and unambiguous, such clarity does not extend to his treatment of secondary qualities. Consequently, some commentators have interpreted Descartes as an anti-realist regarding secondary qualities. This article aims to examine Descartes’ account of qualities and his opposition to scholastic philosophy, while also discussing the different interpretations of his position on secondary qualities, ranging from moderate to anti-realist readings. Ultimately, it defends Descartes as a realist, particularly in light of Locke’s approach to the distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
)
