Tansu KUCUKONCU , PhD
( Tansu KÜÇÜKÖNCÜ ( in Turkish alphabet ) )
------------------------------
Historical Works on Scientific Thought (Alexandre Koyre)
Book criticism by Tansu KUCUKONCU
Koyre examines the basics of scientific thought. He especially uses
the period between 13th and 14th century. He especially uses Aristo-
tales, Platon, Galilei, Kopernic, Kepler, da Vinci, Ibn-i Sina and
Ibn-i Rusd as his examples.
Main results from his book and my ideas about them are below:
* Science is not necessary for a community to live, for a culture to
develop, for a state ( even for a empire ) to be established.
** Science is the most powerful element in the natural ( ? ) election
of communities. It's a necessity especially in the continuity of a
community's life.
* Historical role of science must not be exaggerated.
** It must not be denied, either. Moreover it will not be much wrong to
exaggerated it from the 20th century on.
* Great bureaucracies are against independent scientific thought.
** O.K.
* In the history of science, failures sometimes are important as much
as successes.
** O.K.
* Perceptions can change by conditions and by time.
** It is a necessity.
* Comments on theories and experiments can change by conditions and by
time.
** It is a necessity, too. Because as long as your background, your
knowledge increase or develop your thoughts will change.
* Theory is more important than experiment. Experimentalism alone does
not provide development.
** Experiments are important as much as theories.
* It's difficult to distinguish scientific and unscientific.
** Unscientific things turns out to be scientific after their casual-
ities begin to be known.
* Convincing is important as much as scientific proof.
** How much you know is not important, whatever you say is bordered
with the knowledge of listeners. So if you cannot make the listeners
convince your scientific proof it may not mean much. But even if you
don't have truths if you can make the listeners to convince your ideas
and if it seems as if it worked. Then it may be more meaningful. And
surely it's more powerful.
* Mathematical explanations of sciences of nature have problems and
disadventages.
** Mathematics is a language. It's language of relations. It's a
shortened way of explanations of relations made by mind. Any branch
of science can not be thought without mathematics; since almost
everything in the universe can be expressed easily by the means of
mathematics. It's necessary for communication. It's very much faster
and usable than natural languages. I don't understand why he is
against mathematics.
* He is against excessive usage of methodology.
** But we cannot abondon methodology completely. Otherwise it may cause
anarchy in science.
