This study aims to determine the paradigm shift of scientists who use inner reason to external reason (mind), a concept initiated by Aristotle. The change allegedly occurred because of the strict laws of science. Philosophers basically talk about a topic broadly and deeply about inner reason, while scientists are more focused and narrower (outer reason). Data are obtained from six articles closely related to reason, mind, and brain, then explored and presented by six expert panels for data analysis using the (...) N Vivo 12 QSR tool. The study shows a very strong correlation between the philosophical factor and reason. The results of the cluster analysis describe various comprehensive topics discussed by philosophers regarding reason which are correlated with inner reason and God, while the scientific discussion shows a very strong correlation between the brain and the alpha band. The alpha band is a condition that exists in brain waves. The cluster analysis results illustrate that scientists' discussions are focused and narrow on the brain. Thus, there has been a paradigm shift, where scientists now use outer reason to solve problems in life rather than applying inner reason. An interesting finding from this paper is that philosophers refer to reason as a noun, which means that reason is matter. This information is helpful because until now, based on a literature search, there have been no articles from scientists explaining that reason is a matter. (shrink)

Considerations on scientific ethics for science student are exposed which are required in order to achieve an adequate formation consistent with the intelectual nature of the pursued scientific investiture. This situation is analyzed from the philosophy of science perspective which in this case is strongly supported on the empirical basis of scientific praxis. The philosophical bases for understanding ethics are explained remarking the influence of various philosophical doctrines or schools of thought and underlyning the confusion between moral and ethical perspectives. (...) Consequently, scientific ethics requires handling a proper concept of science, and of scientific method including the debate on its non-existence which lacks basis on philosophy of science. Thus, questions such as: why am I a scientist? what is science? what is scientific method? why do we publish? and, what scientific ethics actually is and how it influences science students? should be considered and coupled with the philosophical doctrines that led us to the praxis of a scientific calling, such as romanticism, existencialism, positivism, rationalism, and empirism, among others. That is, it is an ethical requirement to recognize and consider the philosophical bases of science for the praxis of scientific research. As corolary, it is pertinent to state that ignoring ethics and its philosophical bases may constitute a deficiency in education of science students. (shrink)

Experience in thesis and peer reviewing revealed that most authors have much difficulty in presenting the structural supports of their study. This becomes evident in both their oral and written scientific reports in which little congruency or lack of it is frequently observed between title of the study, general objective (aim), and the hypothesis. Likewise, confusion is usually present when distinguishing purpose from objective when presenting the research problem. In order to aid in approaching the mentioned difficulties an exercise termed (...) Trivium is proposed and explained. This term that designated the main subjects in scholar formation during medieval times, is used to designate the effective coupling of the above three structural elements (title, objective, hypothesis) that, properly used, confer epistemological basis to their scientific reports. Likewise, in order to reinforce this exercise a Quadrivium is recommended in which a fourth structural element is added, i.e., a premise, as the theoretical basis that precisely indicates the purpose of the study and provides immediate support to the hypothesis. Examples to illustrate these exercises are provided. Abiding by this logic may significantly aid science students and some open-minded researchers in adequately constructing their scientific reports, while avoiding frustrating experiences due to uncomfortable observations by peers on their manuscripts. (shrink)

The follow-up research of Aristotle’s syllogism has different approaches. The traditional syllogism follows Aristotle’s conceptual system and hopes to make improvements within Aristotle’s theory. Mathematical logic proposes a new conceptual system to accurately interpret Aristotle’s syllogism. Lei Ma puts forward an extended syllogism whose conceptual system is different from Aristotelian logic and mathematical logic. He thinks that Aristotle’s syllogism and traditional syllogism have tedious figures, moods, and reasoning rules, which are difficult for us to memorize. It is a theoretical conclusion (...) of the human reasoning process but does not conform to the actual human thinking process. Ma’s syllogism is called substitution logic, which mainly concerns the substitution characteristics of a human thinking process, and summarizes the substitution rules in the reasoning process. Substitution logic appropriately describes the actual human reasoning process, thus inspiring us to establish a unified scientific theory of thinking and carry out normative research on the unity of abstract thinking and imaginative thinking. Substitution logic may be applied to the field of artificial intelligence, making artificial intelligence closer to the reality of human thinking. It seems that the research direction of substitution logic will give birth to human-like AI systems and promote the revolutionary transformation of AI research. (shrink)

The concept of engineering is problematic. Despite of the ancient practices of engineering, may be as old as humanity, engineering recently appeared as an academic discipline: engineering studies in universities can be traced back to the nineteenth century. Engineering has been defined as a practice, a process, a profession, and the application of scientific knowledge. However, if engineering is the application of scientific knowledge, there is a tacit assertion of the impossibility to count with proper engineering knowledge, leading to the (...) impossibility, or at least the difficulty, for engineering to own a proper body of knowledge and the rational possibility of doctoral studies in engineering. The main concern in this research is to state a conceptual definition of engineering enough strong that serves as a building block for ontological and epistemological research in philosophy of engineering. It is shown that science and engineering pursue different objectives and produces different results. Therefore, it is possible to make a distinction between one and the other. In this dissertation, epistemological elements of engineering are set apart from ontological elements that compose the concept of engineering to emphasize its nature and the genuine possibility to produce new knowledge of engineering independent of scientific knowledge. However, it is also recognized that even methodologically different, science and engineering are intertwined and interdependent, therefore scientific knowledge does not necessarily precede engineering knowledge. Consequently, there is no hierarchical relationship between science and engineering. (shrink)

People have always tried to make predictions; they are necessary and useful, but very often they commit obvious errors, which have negative consequences on decision-making. Prediction errors are in some cases, not few, unavoidable, because the world itself is unpredictable, subject to chance (or randomness in mathematics). Chance is a property of nature. The causes of random events are physically determined, but so numerous and complex that they (the events) are unpredictable. Science is not about certainty. Human knowledge itself is (...) not certain. We can only have provisional truths. Therefore, we must manage to reach a state of accommodation with uncertainty and unpredictability. The complexity of natural phenomena generates events that we cannot control through theoretical modeling precisely because of the ignorance of the causal mechanisms, which exist in their privacy but have not (yet) been revealed by the data and observations at our disposal. We have, on the one hand, life experience taken over and assimilated and established in society and, on the other hand, experience gained from real life. Norm and chance follow each other rather chaotically. The duration of validity of a norm and the moment of occurrence of the random event are unpredictable. However, norms and events coexist in our consciousness. Order and predictability are born (formed and exist) from rules; chance and unpredictability are born from the lack of rules. The highest truths, recognized as such by society cannot be transposed into the life of society only by the force of reason. It is imperative that they are reinforced and embedded in the social behavior of all citizens. Rules are needed. Without rules there is no freedom. (shrink)

In a pessimistic view, the world is a series of struggles and sufferings. The tribulations are inevitable to man’s life for he is in the world. Pandemic, poverty and corruption are the most prominent and prevailing faces of struggles in the world. It affects the individual’s lives deeply for it undercuts the experience of being alive and free. It weakens man’s appreciation of moments due to misery. The conflicts in the world holds man to appreciate moments for they are occupied (...) on their functionality. The world simply becomes a mechanical for the people lives like a machine where working is much important than reflecting. These problematic figures were paralleled to Gabriel Marcel’s concept of broken world. The paper tends to justify that the world is broken for the reason that first, its problems that could be seen in the contemporary world as pandemic, poverty and corruption. Second, man becomes alienated from himself for he ceases on living due to this problematic world. This paper also ventured to Gabriel Marcel’s concept of broken world which eventually paralleled to the mainstream problems in contemporary world. The author intended to present a pessimistic view about the world which he claimed to be mad and broken. (shrink)