I've no background in philosophy... but can I take a guess at the second topic?
Quote:
The philosophical approach of logical empiricism aimed at our making understand(see the strange grammar) how totally unexpected developments in natural science, like the advent of relativity theory and of quantum mechanics, could come about. To achieve such understanding, logical empiricism tried to analyze the logical structure of mature science. In what way can this analysis help us achieve such understanding? What is the role of experience in the approach of logical empiricism? What conception of scientific progress does this approach imply?
I don't understand this at all. Relativity theory came about because that's the way things are. The role of experience is one of the basis for all theory, right? If anyone knows a good book on logic, but not how to do logic, like not A ^ ~B, but somehting about the philosophy of logic, let me know.
|
Here are some guesses. I'm working backwards from your question...
1) Sure relativity matches observed reality.. to date. Ditto quantum theory. These seem to differ somewhat from previous physics however in that earlier theories were easier to visualize, and were more analogous to the world as we see it in the day-to-day sense.
So in some ways... relativity and QM/QT are the world as we observe it. In other ways... they describe a world quite different to the one which we observe (with our five senses).
2) Going to the question you got asked. The term "mature science" stands out. Also the concept re scientific progress.
Twentieth century physics essentially turned some previous knowledge on it's head. I'm sure that this occurred in sciences before - but still, changes of this magnitude are probably rare. The implications perhaps are that
- science was not as mature as Kant thought
- scientific progress is perhaps not as steady or evolutionary/incremental
as was thought - instead proceeding through jumps
and pehaps even reversals (I have to consider the latter further)
- relativity, a key jump, was in many ways due to a flash of insight
that was later honed by reason. This is a debateable
area sure, but if you look at the initial postulates of special
relativity it is hard not to see this as a big jump. Einstein makes
a jump that might or might not be described as "absurd". Luckily
it all works out ok.
Ok. These were my guesses. I've been vague due to the space (and hour). There are huge gaps, and it may be totally wrong re Kant. Hope it helps though.