The rules of scientific discovery as formulated by K. Popper are briefly reviewed. Historical examples such as the prediction of planets and outstanding events in elementary particle physics are used to show how these rules are applied by the working physicist. Thus these rules are shown to be actual tools rather than abstract norms in the development of physics.

Since the 20th century the quantum physics has shown various phenomena, judged as “seldom and not easily understandable” by the theories of classic physics. From the beginning of the “Kopenhagener Deutung,” Einstein claimed against Heisenberg, Bohr, etc. that the particle physics lacks “physical reality.” A number of physicists have tried to clarify the labyrinth of particle as a minimal substance in the phenomena of the micro world. The entanglement of the “double particle” emitted from a π-meson in its teleportation is (...) one of those phenomena. However, a successful new thesis has also become a target for the antithesis by deputies. Even if the “uncertainty” of an emitted light quantum that is received by the detector “either as a particle or as wave” has been reduced in our time by using probability calculations and new experimental physical facilities, the principal character of particles based on the “uncertainty relation” has not been changed. Although Heisenberg’s formula of the uncertainty relation could be “renewed” by completing certain operational components substituted by some physicists, the fundamental reality of phenomena of particle physics remain: The “physical reality” manifested by Einstein based on his glorious success of the Special and General Theory of Relativity cannot be valid in the micro-world phenomena.Pietschmann, a well-known theoretical physicist in Vienna, and Hashi, a philosopher teaching and researching interdisciplinary philosophy in Vienna, highlight the essential problems of particle physics and clarify them in regards to ontological and epistemological aspects. The dialogue has its origin in the hypothesis that the particle physics needs a logical interpretation with completely new ontological principles. In addition, the fundamental ontology of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy and its further development to rational philosophy of East Asia has various indications and contributions for an ontological epistemology of particle physics. (shrink)

Der Quantenphysiker Herbert Pietschmann beschaftigt sich seit Jahrzehnten mit dem Phanomen Kommunikation. Der Kommunikationswissenschaftler Erich Hamberger setzt sich seit langem mit der Frage der Adaptierung erkenntnistheoretischer Einsichten der Quantentheorie fur die Geistes- und Biowissenschaften auseinander. 2003 begegnen sich die beiden - und staunen uber die "verschrankten Erkenntnisinteressen". 2006 bestreiten sie eine erste gemeinsame universitare Lehrveranstaltung. 2011 folgt Das Phanomen Kommunikation transdisziplinar betrachtet. Aus ihrer Zusammenarbeit ist dieses Buch entstanden. Naturwissenschaft arbeitet auf der Grundlage des mechanistischen Denkrahmens. Die bisher (...) einzige Ausnahme ist die Quantenphysik. Weder Leben noch Kommunikation ist mittels des mechanistischen Denkrahmens zu verstehen. Auch der Denkrahmen der Quantenphysik reicht dazu nicht aus. Der Bedarf nach adaquatem Denken im Bereich der Kommunikation kann durch quantenphysikalisches Denken NICHT befriedigt werden, jedoch kann dadurch ein Weg aufgezeigt werden, wie ein adaquater Denkrahmen zu gestalten ist. (shrink)

The author's primary aim is to help readers discover what is distinctive in Confucius & to learn what he can teach us.

Contends that Freud's theory of civilization is substantially sociological, and examines the philosophical and sociological implications of key Freudian ...

The Mental and the Physical was first published in 1967. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. Professor Feigl's essay "The 'Mental' and the 'Physical'" has provoked a great deal of comment, criticism, and discussion since it first appeared as a part of the content of Volume II of the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science about ten years ago. Now Professor (...) Feigl takes account of the critical discussions and presents his own comments with respect to the most important points raised in the criticisms. The essay itself is presented here in full, along with the postscript. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science has called the essay "a 'super-colossal' survey of the mind-body problem." In its review of the earlier book containing the essay, Thought said: "This essay deserves careful reading by every philosopher concerned with genuine philosophical dialogue.". (shrink)

Phenomenological Psychology in Phenomenological Philosophy [i] Introductory Remarks The chief purpose of the present chapter is to serve as a reminder. ...

At the risk of being ostracized (if not annihilated) by the community of Popperians present, I wish to remark that Professor Lakatos is - and, I think - cannot help being, a second-level inductivist. If Professor Kuhn has pointed out (most eruditely) that science quite frequently is in a rut, and occasionally gets out of it (and into a new one), then Professor Lakatos appraises problem and theory shifts, and methodological innova- tions in the sciences, in the light of his (...) criteria of 'progress' or 'degenera- tion'. There can be little doubt that he wishes to serve (at least) in a critical and/or advisory capacity to scientists. But he can do that only if he 'places his bets', i.e., conjectures as to the fruitfulness of a method, and along with it of a theory engendered or supported by such a method along the lines of success or failure, whichever may be plausibly indicated. I find Professor Lakatos's refutations of simple inductivism (here he agrees with Popper), as well as of simple falsificationism (here he disagrees with a caricature of the early Popper), completely convincing. But if he is to fulfill the critical and/or advisory functions, what else can he do but watch the course of the 'shifts' and extrapolate?! (shrink)