1. Znanost prijavljivanje znanstvenih projekata ponedjeljak, 6. rujan 2010

2. Znanost pojam Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.[Latinsystematicpractice In today's more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.scientific methodresearch It is a "systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories".lawstheories Science in this more restricted sense, sometimes called experimental science, and also gives some broader historical context leading up to the modern understanding of the word "science." experimental science

3. Znanje i neznanje Ukoliko ovu knjigu uzmete u ruke, pred vama će se otvoriti jedna nova slika sasvim poznatog svijeta gluposti, blesavosti, budalaštine, slaboumnosti, gluparenja, nerazboritosti, duševne ograničenosti, tupavosti, u kome su glavni junaci glupani, budale, blesavci, budalaši, bukvani, bedaci, bene, duduci, mamlazi, zvekani, bilmezi, mazgovi, tikvani, tupavci, šašavci, telci, glupačine, obeznanjeni, šupljoglavci, degeni, debili, sumanuti, ćaknuti, zatucani, šenuti ili jednostavno - ograničeni.

4. Funkcija mita Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, insistant sur l'étude des peuples sans écriture Il y décrit comment à son sens fonctionne la «mentalité primitive» et ce qui la différencie fondamentalement de la pensée qu'il nomme "civilisée". Il décrit les sociétés non européennes comme inférieures et définit la mentalité des «primitifs» étudiés par son caractère mystique et prélogique. Lévy- Bruhl établit entre autres que les adultes des sociétés primitives qu'il étudie ont la mentalité d'enfants européens âgés de cinq ans Ce dualisme l'a toutefois entraîné vers une mise en question de l'universalité de la logique, ce qui lui a valu de nombreuses critiques auxquelles il s'est montré lui-même fort sensible, en apportant finalement des corrections et des restrictions à ses premières prises de position. Il marque, en tout cas, en marge du rationalisme durkheimien, un courant de pensée attentif à des phénomènes qui échappent à l'intellectualisme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4zufs6XZVg Lévy-Brühl speculated about what he posited as the two basic mindsets of mankind, "primitive" and "Western." The primitive mind does not differentiate the supernatural from reality, but rather uses "mystical participation" to manipulate the world. According to Lévy-Brühl, moreover, the primitive mind doesn't address contradictions. The Western mind, by contrast, uses speculation and logic. Like many theorists of his time, Lévy-Brühl believed in a historical and evolutionary teleology leading from the primitive mind to the Western mindlogicteleology

5. Funkcija mita Edward Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973, Britain) Edward Evans-Pritchard is known for his approach in analyzing non-western belief systems, especially those in Africa. He believed that anthropologists should analyze societies by considering the local people’s views and should not entirely rely on presupposed ideas about that society. In other words, an anthropologist needs to understand people’s behaviors and thoughts in their own context, which is based on their local reality. Evans-Pritchard studied seemingly alien norms in Africa and demonstrated that they make perfect sense from the local person’s point of view.  The Azande often credit witchcraft when they meet misfortunes. For example, when a building suddenly collapses and people who happen to be under its roof are injured, they say this happening is due to witchcraft. Evans-Pritchard argued that this witchcraft explanation supplies a missing link. The Azande know these two facts: that the supports for the roof were undermined and that people were sitting under the roof in order to escape the glare of the sun. However, the Azande need an explanation that also connects these two events, and that explanation is witchcraft. Evans-Pritchard’s analysis shows that the Azande’s witchcraft explanation is rational according to their way of reasoning. Besides anthropological values, this ethnography Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande has been a primary point of reference in philosophical arguments about rationality and relativism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRqN-X3an1Y&feature=fvw (3,13) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q9HyONL_10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeVovHw1RY&p=C27A8C0755C33527& playnext=1

6. Kant Über den Gemeinspruch:Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis (Berlinische Monatsschrift, 1793.) Da lag es dann nicht an der Theorie, wenn sie zur Praxis noch wenig taugte, sondern daran, daß nicht genug Theorie da war, welche der Mann von der Erfahrung hätte lernen sollen, und welche wahre Theorie ist, wenn er sie gleich nicht von sich zu geben und als Lehrer in allgemeinen Sätzen systematisch vorzutragen im Stande ist, folglich auf den Namen eines theoretischen Arztes, Landwirts und dergl. keinen Anspruch machen kann. - Es kann also Niemand sich für praktisch bewandert in einer Wissenschaft ausgeben und doch die Theorie verachten, ohne sich bloß zu geben, daß er in seinem Fache ein Ignorant sei: indem er glaubt, durch Herumtappen in Versuchen und Erfahrungen, ohne sich gewisse Prinzipien (die eigentlich das ausmachen, was man Theorie nennt) zu sammeln und ohne sich ein Ganzes (welches, wenn dabei methodisch verfahren wird, System heißt) über sein Geschäft gedacht zu haben, weiter kommen zu können, als ihn die Theorie zu bringen vermag. Onda to nije nedostatak teorije kada ona jos malo vrijedi za praksu, nego je nedostatak u tome š to tu teorije nije bilo dovotjno, a nju bi dotícni covjek trebao nauciti iz iskustva; pritom teorija moze biti istinita i kada on ne bi bio u stanju da je od sebe preda dalje i da je kao ucitelj sustavno izlozi u opcim stavovima, i kadaprema tome ne bi mogao polagati nikakvo pravo na ime lijecnika- teoreticara, agronoma-teoretičara i tsl. - Ne moze se, dakle, nitko u jednoj znanosti izdavati za prakticno upucenog i ipak teoriju prezirati a da se time samo ne razotkrije kako je on u svojoj oblastí ignorant; po tome se vidi da on vjeruje kako bi dalje, nego sto bi ga teorija mogla odvesti, mogao otici tapkanjem unaokolo u pokusajima i iskustvima, bez stjecanja stanovitih nacela (koja zapravo cine ono sto se naziva teorijom), i bez promišljanja svoje aktivnosti prema jednoj cjelini (koja se, ako sepritom u njoj metodicki postupa, naziva sustavom).

7. Kant Indes ist doch noch eher zu dulden, daß ein Unwissender die Theorie bei seiner vermeintlichen Praxis für unnötig und entbehrlich ausgebe, als daß ein Klügling sie und ihren Wert für die Schule (um etwa nur den Kopf zu üben) einräumt, dabei aber zugleich behauptet: daß es in der Praxis ganz anders laute; daß, wenn man aus der Schule sich in die Welt begibt, man inne werde, leeren Idealen und philosophischen Träumen nach gegangen zu sein; mit Einem Wort, daß, was in der Theorie sich gut hören läßt, für die Praxis von keiner Gültigkeit sei." KANT, Immanuel: "Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis.". In: ders.: Schriften zur Geschichtsphilosophie. Stuttgart: Reclam 1974, S. 118 f. Ipak se još može otrpjeti da neznalica u svojoj tobožnjoj praksí teoriju smatra nepotrebnom i suvišnom, nego kad nazovipametnjakovic nju i njezinu vrijednost dopušta za školu (kao nesto sto vjezba samo glavu), ali istodobno zakljucuje kako to glasi sasvim drukcije u praksi; kako će se, kad se iz skole pode u svijet, uvidjeti da se sljedilo prazne ideale i filozofske mastarije; jednom riječju, kako, sto god se u teoriji moglo dobroga cuti, nije ni od kakve vrijednosti za praksu

8. Stvaranje znanosti  znanost religija Religija se temelji na vjerovanju a znanost na poricanju  znanost zdravi razum Zdravi razum stabilizira ličnost ali ne daje znanje  znanost kao sloj i profesija Znanstvena zajednica

9. A. Comte; pozitivizam L'AMOUR POUR PRINCIPE ET L'ORDRE POUR BASE ; LE PROGRES POUR BUT Système de politique positive, II, 65, 352

10. R. Dawkins “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity” “[Evolution is] a theory in a special philosophical sense of science, but in terms of ordinary laymen's use of language, it's a fact,... Evolution is a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that the Earth is round and not flat, [that] the Earth goes round the Sun. Both those are also theories, but they're theories that have never been disproved and never will be disproved.”

11. Kraj religije 14:53 Richard Dawkins: "Why would a God raise more questions than he answers? That implies that you are making the assumption that God needs an explanation. " Yes, I am making exactly that assumption, for the same reason as you (assuming you are a theist) think the universe needs an explanation. Hawking has pointed towards an explanation of the universe. 14:54 Richard Dawkins: "Richard, are you saying that the only questions worth answering are scientific ones?" No, not at all. But questions that begin "What is the purpose of..." require the existence of a purposeful agent. You cannot apply such a question to mountains or avalanches or tsunamis or the universe 14:55 Comment From John The existence of God can never be disproved; nor can it ever be proved. This is not surprising, as God is invariably defined in such a way as to put Him beyond the reach of rational enquiry. 14:55 Ruth Gledhill: Richard, #tsunami, i see no divine or godly purpose whatsoever in a tsunami. and as for why would God raise more questions than He answers, He would for exactly the same reason that top scientists do exactly the same, yourself among them. 14:56 Comment From Mike Jackson I'd like to know what it would take for Ruth to believe that God does not exist. What does Science need to prove for her that there is no God Richard Dawkins, The God Desilusion,

12. Stephen Hawking  God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.  The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. Stephen Hawking Stephen Hawking

13. Znanstvena zajednica Poveznica svih “socioloških” objašnjenja unutar filozofije znanosti jest smještanje smjene znanstvenih teorija unutar područja znanstvenih zajednica. Članovi znanstvenih zajednica imaju brojne karakteristične značajke: 1. Slično obrazovanje 2. Sličnu “profesionalnu inicijaciju” 3. Apsorbiraju istu literaturu 4. Izvlače identične zaključke iz te literature.

14. Kuhnova definicija znanstvene zajednice  “…znanstvena zajednica sastoji se od onih koji se aktivno bave jednom znanstvenom specijalnošću.U mjeri koja je nezamisliva u većini drugih područja,oni su prošli kroz slična poučavanja i profesionalna posvećivanja; u tome su procesu oni apsorbirali istu tehničku literaturu i izvukli iz nje jednak broj lekcija.Granice te standardne literature obično označavaju granice nekog znanstvenog predmeta, a svaka zajednica obično ima svoj vlastiti predmet”.

15. Scientific research depends critically on monotonicity, concurrency, commutativity, and pluralism to propose, modify, support, and oppose scientific methods, practices, and theories. Quoting from Carl Hewitt, Scientific Community Metaphor systems have characteristics of monotonicity, concurrency, commutativity, pluralism, skepticism and provenance. monotonicity: Once something is published it cannot be undone. Scientists publish their results so they are available to all. Published work is collected and indexed in libraries. Scientists who change their mind can publish later articles contradicting earlier ones. concurrency: Scientists can work concurrently, overlapping in time and interacting with each other. commutativity: Publications can be read regardless of whether they initiate new research or become relevant to ongoing research. Scientists who become interested in a scientific question typically make an effort to find out if the answer has already been published. In addition they attempt to keep abreast of further developments as they continue their work. pluralism: Publications include heterogeneous, overlapping and possibly conflicting information. There is no central arbiter of truth in scientific communities. skepticism: Great effort is expended to test and validate current information and replace it with better information. provenance: The provenance of information is carefully tracked and recorded. http://thinktag.mobi/documentstore/documentsFiles/798984/AIM-641.pdf

16. Vrijednosna neutralnost Following the example of the scientific method, positivist scholars tend to advocate a detached attitude toward research. For many others, Max Weber 's concept of value relevance provides a guiding principle; he argued that it is all but impossible for researchers to keep their values from entering into observations and analyses. The very process of selecting a research topic, for example, is influenced by researchers' personal backgrounds, interests, and experiences. More radical than Weber's position are the variety of interventionist approaches to social research, which promote the empowerment of subordinate or oppressed social groups.Weber On the question of bias, Weber again provides an influential example. Although he believed in the principle of value relevance, he also maintained that value neutrality should be upheld in the research process; this means that once the research begins, researchers should not let their personal values influence the collection and analysis of data, and they should not hide or change research findings that are contrary to their beliefs or expectations. At this point, the question is no longer confined to the issue of objectivity but involves complex ethical issues as well.

17. Robert Merton  Prvi sociolog koji je primio National Medal of Science (1994)  Sveuč. Columbia (s Lazarsfeldom) osniva Bureau of Applied Social Research  1957. Predsjednik ASA  “Diplomski na Harvardu (1936) “Social Structure and Anomie”  “On the Shoulders of Giants”  “Travels and Adventures of Serendipity”  Mertonova “kabanica”: Eugene Garfield: ISA, scijentometrija

18. Normativna struktura znanosti  Univerzalizam (impersonalnost)  “Komunizam” (komunikacija rezultata, pitanje vlasničkih prava)  Nepristranost (policing, fraud)  Organizirani skepticizam  Intelektualno poštenje  Intregritet

19. Robert K. Merton: moralne norme znanstvene zajednice:  1.Univerzalizam: isključivi imperativ prosuđivanja svakog pojedinačnog doprinosa znanstvenoj zajednici je u unutrašnjoj vrijednosti, neovisno o autoru.  2.Komunalnost: ovaj imperativ pripisuje pojedinačni znanstveni doprinos vlasništvu cjelokupne znanstvene zajednice i daje ga na upotrebu svakome tko ga zna uporabiti.

20. Robert K. Merton: moralne norme znanstvene zajednice:  3.Nesebičnost: istina je najvažnija- insistira se na spoznatoj istini bez obzira na individualne ili kolektivne posljedice (pa i cjelokupno čovječanstvo).  4.Organizirani skepticizam: nalaže se odbacivanje autoriteta u smislu zahtjeva za slobodnom kritikom-ničiji pojedinačni doprinos se ne prihvaća bez provjere.

21. Funkcija znanstvenih normi (autonomije znanosti)  “Znanstveni ethos zahtijeva socijalnu stabilnost znanosti, a to je moguće samo ako postoje adekvatne obrane od napada izvanjske zajednice”. Tamo gdje se sve mjeri političkim, ekonomskim ili teološkim vrijednostima, ne može se razviti znanstveni ethos. (259)  (druga strana medalje) “Glavna funkcija stalnog odbacivanja aplikacija i utilitarnih normi zn. rada jest izbjegavanje te opasnosti.” 260 – “čista znanost”

22. Funkcija znanstvenih normi II  Spremnost da se prihvati autoritet znanosti počiva na svakodnevnom dokazivanju njezine moći. (da toga nema, javnost je ne bi hranila samo na “povjerenje”) 261  Ali (negativno) ta “autonomija” zanemaruje “socijalne” rezultate takvoga stava koji ugrožavaju znanstveni status: “Kako znanstvenik ne može kontrolirati pravac aplikacije njegovih otkrića, on postaje predmetom revolta, što se češće javnost ne slaže s njima”  “Iz te perspektive čista znanost i nepristranost pripomogli su u kreiranju vlastita epitafa”  “Znanstvenici pretpostavljaju da dugoročno moraju postojati korisni efekti znanosti. Taj vjerski stav ima funkciju opravdanja zn. Istraživanja, ali to nije činjenični stav. On brka istinu i socijalnu korist i ta se zbrka često pojavljuje među znanstvenicima.

23. Funkcije znanstvenih normi III  (sporedni, neočekivani proizvod): Što znanost postaje sofisticiranija, to se više odvaja od laičke publike. Laička publika ne može kontrolirati valjanost, kao što ne može kontrolirati niti totalitarne vođe... 264. “Time će mitovi totalitarnih teoretičara izgledati privlačniji... Dijelom i zbog napretka znanosti, publika postaje spremnija na novi misticizam zaogrnut navodnim znanstvenim žargonom. To potiče i uspjeh propagande uopće.”  Organizirani skepticizam se širi i na druge institucije. Reakcija: revolt protiv “uplitanja znanosti u druge sfere” (skepticizam podriva temelje institucionalnosti i status quo  Funkcionalni odnos prema znanosti u totalitarizmu i demokraciji različit (u dem. veća sloboda – glasniji otpor)

24. Izvori neprijateljstva prema znanosti  Dva izvora neprijateljstva logički: “rezultati i metode znanosti protive se zadovoljenju važnih vrijednosti” Vanlogički: “osjećaj nesumjerljivosti znanstvenog ethosa i ethosa drugih institucija” (255)  Dominacija jedne socijalne strukture (države) podriva autoritet i autonomiju druge (znanosti)

25. Smjena znanstvenih teorija  Ono što konstituira znanost (Popper) nisu ustanovljeni rezultati nego istraživački procesi.  Znanstvene teorije su promjenjive, stalni aspekt znanosti je u istraživanju (istraživački projekti sastavljeni od pretpostavki koja promatranja vršiti i kako ih interpretirati).  Znanost možemo definirati tek kroz njen dinamički aspekt-razvoj znanosti.

26. Zahvaćanje dinamičkog aspekta znanosti  Zahvaćanjem dinamičkog aspekta znanosti opada zanimanje za “esencijalistički” pristup definiranju znanosti putem vječnih i nepromjenjivih kategorija.  Pretpostavljanje socijalnih razloga za temelje znanstvenog napretka ili izmjene znanstvenih teorija predstavlja sociološki obrat.

27. Karl Popper the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified (again, in this context the word 'falsified' does not refer to something being 'fake'; rather, that something can be shown to be false by observation or experiment because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that empirical theories are characterized by falsifiability.  Inkonzistencija  Neadekvatnost  Stav da teoriju treba osporiti  Stav da se znanost usavršava stalnim napretkom In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. Karl Popper

28. Znanost  Znanost je iznošenje iskaza koji se provjeravaju korak po korak, brižljivim uspoređivanjem sa iskustvom. (Popper,1973,61).  Uvjerljiva je i praktički korisna. Njena uvjerljivost proizilazi iz činjenice sukladnosti sa stvarnošću.  Korist iz toga što nam daje "znanja tehnika upravljanja životom" (Weber,1986,276), što nam pruža metode mišljenja i potrebnu jasnoću.

29. Paradigma  Thomas Kuhn,  Struktura znanstvenih revolucija A paradigm is essential to scientific inquiry—"no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism" (16- 17).

30. Paradigma  Thomas Kuhn, Paradigms help scientific communities to bound their discipline in that they help the scientist to  create avenues of inquiry.  formulate questions.  select methods with which to examine questions.  define areas of relevance.

31. Thomas Kuhn: Struktura znanstvenih revolucija  During this time there had also been a number of less orthodox philosophers who believed that logical models of pure science did not apply to actual scientific practice. It was the publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, however, which fully opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that it did not operate under the simple logical laws put forward by the logical positivist school of philosophy.Thomas KuhnThe Structure of Scientific Revolutionslogical positivist  Kuhn described the development of scientific knowledge not as linear increase in truth and understanding, but as series of periodic revolutions which overturned old scientific order and replaced it with new orders (what he called "paradigms"). Kuhn attributed much of this process to the interactions and strategies of the human participants in science rather than its own innate logical structure. (See sociology of scientific knowledge and Theories and sociology of the history of science).paradigmssociology of scientific knowledge Theories and sociology of the history of science  Some interpreted Kuhn's ideas to mean that scientific theories were, either wholly or in part, social constructs, which many interpreted as diminishing the claim of science to representing objective reality (though many social constructivists do not put forward this claim), and that reality had a lesser or potentially irrelevant role in the formation of scientific theories. In 1971, Jerome Ravetz published Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, a book describing the role that the scientific community, as a social construct, plays in accepting or rejecting so-called "objective" scientific knowledge.[social constructs Jerome Ravetz[

32. Centralno pitanje Kuhnove teorije Struktura znanstvenih revolucija istražuje pitanje znanstvenog napretka. Već prva riječ naslova-struktura-sugerira: 1. riječ je o nečemu nehomogenom,što ima dijelove, 2.takvi dijelovi ne stoje u proizvoljnoj vezi kaotično mijenjajući odnose, postoji poredak, 3.upravo zbog poretka stvar na neki način opstaje cijela.

33. Struktura razvoja znanosti Kuhn nalazi postojanje triju samostalnih i vremenski različitih faza. Postojanje takvih faza je konstanta. Faze znanstvenog razvoja sačinjavaju Univerzalni fazni model znanstvenog razvoja (Universal phase model of scientific development).

34. Shema univerzalnog faznog modela razvoja znanosti

35. Faze razvoja znanosti po Kuhnu 1. Predparadigmatska faza (razdoblje prije konsenzusa). 2. Normalna znanost (razdoblje konsenzusa). 3. Znanstvena revolucija.

36. Razdoblje predparadigme Ovo razdoblje karakterizira postojanja brojnih “struja” ili “škola”. Takve škole su u sukobu ili rivalstvu oko zastupanja svoje slike svijeta i pogleda na prirodu. Činjenice se prikupljaju bez jasnog teorijskog okvira. Istraživači su prisiljeni izgrađivati svoje područje iz samog temelja. U nedostatku standardne metode ovakav tip istraživanja je tek nasumična aktivnost.

37. Normalna znanost Uspostavom paradigme ili konsenzusa nestaje razilaženje oko temeljnih pretpostavki određenog područja. Što je točno konsenzus nije (jednoznačno) definirano. Može se ipak reći da je konsenzus vodič ili uputa za rješavanje konkretnih problema znanstvene djelatnosti. Za paradigmu Kuhn kaže: “Paradigma je ono što članovi jedne znanstvene zajednice dijele i, obrnuto, znanstvena zajednica se sastoji od ljudi koji dijele jednu paradigmu.”

38. Zrela znanost Faza normalne znanost je smještena unutar zrele znanosti (mature science). Znanstvena praksa unutar zrele znanosti je poduprta širokom osnovicom konsenzusa znanstvene zajednice oko temeljnih pitanja. Paradigma je temelj univerzalnog konsenzusa koji omogućava da određenoj znanstvenoj praksi pripišemo karakteristike normalne znanosti. Određeni dijelovi znanstvenog znanja postaju dogmatske prirode-zatvoreni za preispitivanje i raspravu.

39. Puzzle solving Najslikovitije pojašnjavanje istraživačke prakse normalne znanosti vidi analogiju između normalne znanosti i rješavanja zagonetki (puzzle solving). Analogija se temelji na postojanju pravila, očekivanju rješivosti, pomanjkanju očekivanja inovacija, nesukladnosti takvih aktivnosti testiranju ili potvrđivanju. Znanstvenici koji djeluju unutar normalne znanosti nisu skloni rješavanju problema uvođenjem temeljnih promjena. Dogmatizam normalne znanosti omogućava temeljitost, dubinu i točnost istraživanja.

40. Postoji li napredak unutar normalne znanosti? Ispitivanje napretka unutar faze normalne znanosti pretpostavlja sljedeće: 1. Kasnija faza pokazuje porast u određenom pogledu s obzirom na raniju fazu i nije samo dopuna ili jednostavna promjena, 2. Takav porast nije slučajni aspekt procesa nego je upravo ono važno, 3. Pojam progresa ima afirmativni predznak i pozitivno određenje na vrijednosnoj skali proučavanog područja. Po ovome, znanstveni napredak je očit.

41. Pojava anomalija Pojava iznenađujućih nalaza, s obzirom na paradigmom propisana očekivanja, ili čak suprotnih propisanom, znači postojanje paradigme. Anomalija po svojoj definiciji znači odstupanje od pravilnosti-u ovom slučaju od pravilnosti propisanih paradigmom. Anomalija se može pojaviti samo ondje gdje postoji neka pravilnost ili očekivanje. Anomalije koje izazivaju krizu u funkcioniranju normalne znanosti nazivaju se ozbiljne ili značajne anomalije.

42. Prepoznavanje značajnih anomalija Kuhn nije definirao univerzalno primjenjive kriterije za prepoznavanje značajnih anomalija nego je tek naveo neke od čimbenika prepoznavanja: 1.Značajna anomalija je ona zbog koje nastaje kvantitativno razilaženje između teorijskih predviđanja i pokusa ili opservacijskih nalaza.

43. Značajne anomalije 2.Anomalija ispočetka prepoznata kao neznačajna može tijekom razvoja na drugom mjestu u okviru normalne znanosti ukazati na probleme vladajućih pravilnosti, 3.Anomalija može postati značajna ukoliko se njeno rješavanje tijekom dužeg vremena opire čak i najboljim stručnjacima tog područja, 4.Anomalija koja se ponavlja u različitim pokusima ili različite anomalije kojima se može naći isti korijen.

44. Znanost u krizi Pojava značajnih anomalija dovodi do kriznih stanja i potkopava same temelje neke,do tada općeprihvaćene teorije. Pojava značajne anomalije širi sumnju u postojeću paradigmu čime se zahtijeva otvaranje rasprave o prijašnjim pravilnostima i vladajućim teorijama. Znanost u stanju krize nazivamo “neuobičajena znanost”. Neuobičajena znanost želi mijenjati postojeće pravilnosti rastvarajući anomalijska uzročnike krize istovremeno čuvajući prethodno dostignuta rješenja problema koliko god je to moguće.

45. Simptomi neuobičajene znanosti: 1. Nezadovoljstvo sposobnošću prijašnje vladajuće teorije u rješavanju problema, 2. Stalna upotreba starih pravilnosti za rješavanje problema s dopunskim i modificiranim formama, 3. Eksperimentiranje sa situacijama bez precizno očekivanog rezultata, 4. Prepoznavanje temelja prethodne istraživačke prakse pomoću filozofske analize.

46. Razrješenje kriznih stanja Krizna stanja normalne znanosti mogu biti razriješena na više načina. Anomalija može nestati unutar granica do tada vladajućih pravilnosti. Anomalija se može priznati i ignorirati ukoliko ne ometa rad na problemima izvan nekog uskog područja ili se teorija uzročnik krize prakse normalne znanosti zamjenjuje novom teorijom.

47. Znanstvena revolucija Razvoj znanosti revolucijom destruktivan je po istraživački model normalne znanosti. Staro znanje koje konstituira znanstvenu sliku pojavnog svijeta biva uništeno. Napredak putem revolucionarnog znanja tako je destruktivno-konstruktivan, a nije kumulativan. Nova teorija mora biti sposobna riješiti veliki dio problema o kojima je govorila stara teorija istovremeno rješavajući anomalije koje su dovele do kriznih stanja.

48. Izvan logički razlozi prihvaćanja nove teorije Razlozi prihvaćanja nove teorije nisu samo logičke prirode kao što ni same teorije koje su u pitanju nisu logički uskladive. Kuhn u svojoj Strukturi… navodi kako do novog odnosa prema istraživanim objektima dolazi na sljedeći način: “Znanstvenici tada često govore o padanju koprene s očiju ili bljesku munje koji obasjava prije toga mračnu zagonetku omogućavajući da se njeni sastavni dijelovi sagledaju na novi način.U drugim prilikama relevantno rasvjetljenje dolazi u snu.”

49. Obilježja nove teorije U početnoj fazi nova teorija je inferiorna staroj teoriji. Odluka o prihvaćanju nove teorije donosi se na osnovi vjere kako će nova paradigma uspješnije rješavati probleme. Nova teorija treba veći dio problema riješenih starom teorijom rješavati s većom ili barem podjednakom točnošću. Pojave koje su za staru teoriju predstavljale nešto neočekivano za novu teoriju moraju biti u području predvidivog.

50. znanost? Izbor nove paradigme vrši se čimbenicima sociološke i psihološke prirode. Odbacivanje stare paradigme bez razloga koji potiču iz logičke strukture znanstvenog znanja,kao i vjera kako će nova paradigma bolje objašnjavati zadane pojave od stare paradigme (iako se nova paradigma uopće ne mora baviti pojavama kojima se bavila stara paradigma) nije racionalno djelovanje. Po Kuhnu ispada kako je sama znanost tek djelomično racionalna znanost-u fazi normalne znanosti.

51. Vrijednosna neutralnost The value said to structure most social science research; it implies primarily the absence of researcher bias but also the correspondence of findings to the real world. These different connotations of the term raise a number of fundamental questions about the goals and methods of research: (1) Does the social world have a fixed reality independent of our conceptions of it? This question pits positivism against the many types of research that emphasize the role of cognitive, cultural, or linguistic structures as the mediators of experience and the constituent features of social reality; (2) a corollary to the first question: Is it possible to produce universal knowledge claims about social systems that are analogous to those claims in the natural sciences? In other words, can social research be said to be “true” in any strong sense, or is it inevitably locked into a series of approximations and debatable opinions; (3) from a methodological standpoint, What are the consequences of detachment or close involvement in the social phenomena under study? This has been a crucial subject in sociology and especially anthropology, where differences between qualitative and quantitative work are sharp and where the barriers of cultural difference are often high; and (4) Is it possible to keep research procedures free from bias? How can one minimize the tendency of questioners to solicit or steer respondents toward preconceived answers?positivism sociologyanthropology A host of diverging and rival answers exist for each of these questions, and it is unrealistic to hope for some final consensus. Much depends on the significance accorded language or symbolic behavior as a mediator of experience and as an inevitably unreliable or partial medium of communication. This has been one of the key contributions of modern philosophy to recent debates in the social sciences—following the so-called linguistic turn of both continental and Anglo-American philosophy in the mid- twentieth century. The question remains central, too, to debates about poststructuralism and postmodernism. See also deconstruction. poststructuralismpostmodernismdeconstruction

52. Ratovi znanosti ratovi znanosti su serija intelektualnih nadmetanja između znanstvenioh realista i postmodernih kritičara o prirodi znanstvenih teorija. Postmodernisti čine upitnima objektivnost znanstvenih teorija i smatraju znanje kulturalno određenim. Znanstveni realisti drže da je znanje objektivno iskoristivo i kažu da kritičari ne razumiju znanost

53. Raznolikost socijalnih razlika  Edinburška škola (R. Barnes i D. Bloor) pripisuje smjene znanstvenih teorija isključivo socijalnim interesima.  P. Fayerabend tvrdi kako su u osnovi smjene teorija brojni izvan logički faktori poput “propagande” i “ideologije”.  Za Fayerabenda ne postoji nikakva, pa ni metodička jedinstvenost znanosti (nema razlike između znanosti i quasi znanosti, npr. između astronomije i astrologije).

54. Postmodernizam: Fayerabend  number of different philosophical and historical schools, often lumped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often assigning political and economic conditions as formative a role in theory development as scientific observations. Rather than being held up as heroes of knowledge, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with as equal validity as did scientific explanations.postmodernismPaul Feyerabendreligion  Somewhat of a middle view between the "postmodernist" and "realist" camps is that put forward by thinkers such as Imre Lakatos. For Lakatos, scientific knowledge is progressive; however, it progresses not by a strict linear path where every new element builds upon and incorporates every other, but by an approach where a "core" of a "research program" is established by auxiliary theories which can themselves be falsified or replaced without compromising the core. Social conditions and attitudes affect how strongly one attempts to resist falsification for the core of a program, but the program has an objective status, notwithstanding, based on its relative explanatory power.Imre Lakatos

55. Kulturalni relativizam Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective. Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass judgment on another society. Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently good) with any cultural expression.

56. Relativizam - primjer At the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights and put forward the following conclusions: 1. Human Rights as currently defined are not universal but based on Western morality. 2. They should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in disregard of those societies’ historical and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong. 3. Furthermore they contend that the imposition of one’s standard on another culture is unjust and imperialist in nature.

57. Relativizam tvrdnje  1. There exist profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam.  2. In order to fully understand a culture, one must be a product of that culture.  3. Even if a culture were to borrow a concept from another culture, that concept’s meaning would be filtered through the first culture’s unique linguistic- conceptual culture.  4. There can be no universal meaning to a moral value.  5. A universal text on values is a futile exercise.

58. Sokalova psina U proljetnom dvobroju časopisa Social Text (1996.)profesor Alan Sokal, fizičar sa Sveučilišta New York, objavio je članak pod naslovom Prelaženje preko granica: prema transformativnoj hermeneutici kvantne gravitacije. Neposredno nakon objavljivanja toga teksta u časopisu Lingua Franca, autor Alan Sokal objavio je da je njegov članak Prelaženje preko granica... znanstvena prijevara. Cilj Sokalove prijevare bio je da se pokaže znanstvena nekompetentnost uredništva časopisa, odnosno velike skupine znanstvenika s područja kulturnih i socijalnih znanosti, ili čak i samih tih znanosti.

59. Sokalova psina Sokal wrote "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", an article proposing that quantum gravity has progressive political implications, and that the "morphogenetic field" (a New Age concept by Rupert Sheldrake) could be a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. He concluded that, since "physical reality" is, at bottom, a social and linguistic construct, a "liberatory science" and an "emancipatory mathematics", spurning "the elite caste canon of 'high science'", must be established for a "postmodern science [that] provide[s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project."quantum gravity progressivemorphogenetic fieldNew AgeRupert Sheldrake

60. Zašto psina? Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the "morphogenetic field'' -- a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake -- constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim. I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link. In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

61. Sokal zašto But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them. Allan Sokal

62. Eksperiment kao nužan dio znanastvene metode The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations — to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess." Feynman also observed, "...there is an expanding frontier of ignorance...things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected."[15][15]

63. Društvene i prirodne Kriterij znanstvenosti istraživanja u društvenim znanostima je njegova primjenjivost u funkcionalnom društvu. istraživanja moraju pokazati je li originalna hipoteze su izdržala ponovni praktični eksperimente ili ne. Pogrešnost zaključka utvrditi ćemo u praktičnoj primjeni tako da pratimo nepoželjne, odnosno, neočekivane rezultate, utvrdimo kada naša tehnologija ima nepredviđene posljedice. Početne hipoteze mora biti revidiran i tada istraživao dosljedno objašnjenje. Jednom je to shvatiti u prirodno aktivne načelu, u pokušaju da praksa objektivno razumjeti i objasniti teorijski, to može biti učinkovito za praktičnu upotrebu. Praktična upotreba je pod novim, nepredviđenim situacijama novih spoznaja koje bi dovelo do teorije da moraju postojati (primjerice, rezultati istraživanja nesreće se koriste kako bi se sigurnije vozila). Interesa u znanstvene teorije leži u njezinoj funkcionalna uporaba - za razliku od društvene znanstvene teorije, predmet političke kontroverze. To je napomenuti da korištenje tehnologije radi bez korisnički često shvatio princip rada (kao što su računala ili mobitela). Primjena tehnologija još uvijek neće uspjeti operacije ili popravak umjetnosti, ali će biti u neznanju funkcionalno načelo. Isto tako sa tvrtke: Ona radi, bez da je većina ljudi bi biti svjesni principa kojima počiva. Iako su sve opcije su dostupne učiti to načelo, njegovo postojanje je zasjenjena, na primjer, je razvijen od strane obrazovanju politiziran. Das gesellschaftliche Kriterium naturwissenschaftlicher Forschung ist ihre funktionale Anwendbarkeit in Gesellschaft. Weitere Forschungsversuche müssen zeigen, ob die ursprünglichen Thesen bei wiederholten praktischen Versuchen haltbar sind oder nicht. Falsche Schlussfolgerungen ziehen Fehler bei der praktischen Anwendung nach sich, so dass unerwünschte, d. h. unerwartete Resultate folgen, also Technik unabsehbare Folgen hat. Eine ursprüngliche These muss dann revidiert und nach einer widerspruchsfreien Erklärung geforscht werden. Sobald das in der Natur wirksame Prinzip verstanden, in einer Versuchspraxis objektiv nachvollzogen und theoretisch erklärt worden ist, lässt es sich für die Praxis zielgerichtet verwenden. Die praktische Verwendung ergibt unter neuen, nicht vorhersehbaren Konstellationen neue Erkenntnisse, die möglicherweise dazu führen, dass die Theorie ergänzt werden muss (z. B. dienen die Erkenntnisse der Unfallforschung dazu, Fahrzeuge sicherer zu machen). Das Interesse bei naturwissenschaftlicher Theorie liegt in ihrer funktionalen Anwendung - im Gegensatz zu gesellschaftswissenschaftlicher Theorie, die Gegenstand politischen Streits ist.

64. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GvQ6chTlHw&feature=related To bi mogo i ja. Samo mi treba unutarnji mir i trening pa bi mogo pomaknut uho zaustavit srce i letjet. Ima neki dijelovi mozga za koje se nezna za sta služe. Valjda ih trebamo naućit koristit

65. DRUŠTVENE/PRIRODNE Prior to the 1700s, the preferred term for the study of nature among English speakers was "natural philosophy", while other philosophical disciplines (e.g., logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics) were typically referred to as "moral philosophy". Today, "moral philosophy" is more-or-less synonymous with "ethics". Well into the 1700s, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century (1600s) to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a prescription for exactly how to accomplish a specific task. With respect to the transitional usage of the term "natural philosophy" in this period, the philosopher John Locke wrote disparagingly in 1690 that "natural philosophy is not capable of being made a science".[11]natural philosophylogicmetaphysics epistemologyethicsaestheticsmoral philosophynatural philosophyscientific methodAristotelianJohn Locke[11]