Research questions.

What are some research questions in philosophy? What are some type of question that you feel passionate about, and that you study all the textbooks, and you read all there is? It has to be something that you research, and put a lot of effort in the act study.

What about scientists? They say the world is nonlocal. That it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation. That the world is a 4 d manifold. That singular is where space, and time began. Is that not weird, and counterintuitive?

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What about scientists? They say the world is nonlocal. That it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation. That the world is a 4 d manifold. That singular is where space, and time began. Is that not weird, and counterintuitive?

I wouldn't know, since I don't understand a lot of that. But I don't think that any scientist I have hear about thinks that it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation.

For example, I believe that Von Pauli held that there were neutrinos, and then after a while some observations were make to confirm that statement. Or, Pasteur postulated the existence of germs, but it was sometime after that we could actually observe germs through more powerful microscopes.

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What about scientists? They say the world is nonlocal. That it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation. That the world is a 4 d manifold. That singular is where space, and time began. Is that not weird, and counterintuitive?

I wouldn't know, since I don't understand a lot of that. But I don't think that any scientist I have hear about thinks that it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation.

QM is something I do not pretend to understand, and most people on this board do pretend to understand it. Postulation is an integral part of theoretical science. The history of science is rife with discovery through postulation, and then attempting to confirm what was postulated. I have already given you two examples from the history of science, one of which was the postulation of germs by Pasteur. Another celebrated instance was the discovery of the planet Neptune which resulted from it postulation to explain certain anomalies in the orbit of Uranus. Postulation is at the heart of theoretical science. Indeed, the term "theoretical" is meant to point to the fact that what was postulated was not directly observed, but was rather theorized in order to explain what was directly observed.
And perhaps you never heard of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a pretty big thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Quote:

For example, I believe that Von Pauli held that there were neutrinos, and then after a while some observations were make to confirm that statement. Or, Pasteur postulated the existence of germs, but it was sometime after that we could actually observe germs through more powerful microscopes.

Does the fact that i can postulate something makes it science? Obvious not. Perhaps we need to postulate something that can conceivable be observed? This would rule out the existence of quarks. Perhaps we can postulate something, and also set out a set of rules for what count as evidence? Would that be satisfying?

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What about scientists? They say the world is nonlocal. That it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation. That the world is a 4 d manifold. That singular is where space, and time began. Is that not weird, and counterintuitive?

I wouldn't know, since I don't understand a lot of that. But I don't think that any scientist I have hear about thinks that it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation.

And perhaps you never heard of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a pretty big thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Quote:

For example, I believe that Von Pauli held that there were neutrinos, and then after a while some observations were make to confirm that statement. Or, Pasteur postulated the existence of germs, but it was sometime after that we could actually observe germs through more powerful microscopes.

Does the fact that i can postulate something makes it science? Obvious not. Perhaps we need to postulate something that can conceivable be observed? This would rule out the existence of quarks. Perhaps we can postulate something, and also set out a set of rules for what count as evidence? Would that be satisfying?

What are some research questions in philosophy? What are some type of question that you feel passionate about, and that you study all the textbooks, and you read all there is? It has to be something that you research, and put a lot of effort in the act study.

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What about scientists? They say the world is nonlocal. That it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation. That the world is a 4 d manifold. That singular is where space, and time began. Is that not weird, and counterintuitive?

I wouldn't know, since I don't understand a lot of that. But I don't think that any scientist I have hear about thinks that it is meaningless to say anything definite about reality before observation.

And perhaps you never heard of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a pretty big thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Quote:

For example, I believe that Von Pauli held that there were neutrinos, and then after a while some observations were make to confirm that statement. Or, Pasteur postulated the existence of germs, but it was sometime after that we could actually observe germs through more powerful microscopes.

Does the fact that i can postulate something makes it science? Obvious not. Perhaps we need to postulate something that can conceivable be observed? This would rule out the existence of quarks. Perhaps we can postulate something, and also set out a set of rules for what count as evidence? Would that be satisfying?

QM is something I do not pretend to understand, and most people on this board do pretend to understand it. Postulation is an integral part of theoretical science. The history of science is rife with discovery through postulation, and then attempting to confirm what was postulated. I have already given you two examples from the history of science, one of which was the postulation of germs by Pasteur. Another celebrated instance was the discovery of the planet Neptune which resulted from it postulation to explain certain anomalies in the orbit of Uranus. Postulation is at the heart of theoretical science. Indeed, the term "theoretical" is meant to point to the fact that what was postulated was not directly observed, but was rather theorized in order to explain what was directly observed.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

What are some research questions in philosophy? What are some type of question that you feel passionate about, and that you study all the textbooks, and you read all there is? It has to be something that you research, and put a lot of effort in the act study.

Research questions in philosophy should be centered around a specific thesis. I don't think general questions are good "research" questions, they are more areas of study.

So, some of the research topics I've dealt with lately:

1. Bonjour's answer to the Sellar's problem
2. The Relation between Kierkegaard's faith paradox and his Absolute Paradox
3. The Dialogical Nature of Philosophy
4. Merleu-Ponty's critique of Husserls Phenomenological Reduction
5. Kant's Judgments of Perception and Judgements of Experience

Notice that these all sound like research paper titles.... because they are. Research must have a specific focus. That isn't to say a good general background is not required, because general background is extremely important. But it seems to me that research should have a set direction. Otherwise one's research become less research like and more study like.

Then more an area of study. Research is more specific. Great. Fine. Do you really need to write all that?

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Then more an area of study. Research is more specific. Great. Fine. Do you really need to write all that?

You asked for research questions, so I provided some. I also added a point that research should be focused on a specific topic and explained why. Sorry you felt that I wrote too much. Did you really have to be so cranky in your reply?