The Semiotics of Global Warming: Combating Semiotic Corrruption

The central focus of this paper is the disjunction between the findings of climate science in revealing the threat of global warming and the failure to act appropriately to these warnings. The development of climate science can be illuminated through the perspective provided by Peircian semiotics, but efforts to account for its success as a science and its failure to convince people to act accordingly indicate the need to supplement Peirce’s ideas. The more significant gaps, it is argued, call for the integration of major new ideas. It will be argued that Peirce should be viewed as a Schellingian philosopher, and it will then be shown how this facilitates integration into his philosophy of concepts developed by other philosophers and theorists within this tradition. In particular, Bourdieu’s concepts of the ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ will be integrated with Peirce’s semiotics and used to analyse the achievements and failures of climate science. It will be suggested that the resulting synthesis can augment Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology and so provide a better basis for comprehending and responding to the situation within which we find ourselves

ECONOMETRICS AND REALITY

Starting with a realist ontology the economic methodologist, Tony Lawson, argues that econometrics is a failed project. Apparently more sympathetic to econometrics, the philosopher of science, Nancy Cartwright, again from a realist perspective, nonetheless argues for conditions of applicability that are so stringent that she must seriously doubt the usefulness of econometrics. In this paper, I reconsider Lawson''s and Cartwright''s analyses and argue that realism supports rather than undermines econometrics properly interpreted and executed.

Economists, listen to Feyerabend

This paper revisits the writings of the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, in order to argue for pluralism in economics education. In particular, the benefits of pluralism, the role of science and the notion of scientific rationality are examined from the perspective of economics.Feyerabend, Economics teaching, Pluralism

Philosophy of Science and Democracy. Some reflections on Philipp Frank"s "Relativity – a richer truth".

Philipp Frank"s book Relativity – a richer truth1 shows something we do not find very often after World War 2: a philosopher of science acting as a public intellectual. Taking part in the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Philipp Frank intervened in the public debate about the causes of Nazism and how to defend democracy and liberalism against totalitarian ideas and politics. Could philosophy of science contribute to such a struggle? Philipp Frank thought it could, he even thought that Philosophy of Science should play a crucial role in it. It"s obvious that this position should be of some interest for philosophers in Austria and Europe today. Of course, any serious analysis of Frank"s position would have to take the whole historical constellation into account. Between the beginning of the conference in 1940 and the publication of the book in 1951 the historical situation had dramatically changed. And therefore one has to distinguish several political dimensions in Frank"s arguments. Let me just make a short remark on the plurality of political perspectives Frank"s discourse opened up. Philipp Frank defined the role science should play in democracy not only in contrast to the role of science as it was conceived by totalitarian governments. Of course he criticised the Nazis" and Soviets" �philosophies of science� several times (see for instance p. 73, 98, 103p.). But he also made very clear that in the 40ies and 50ies not even the majority of scholars and university teachers in the US supported the specific view of science which Frank thought was so important to the advancement of democracy (for instance 59pp.). His rather critical comments on the teaching of science in the post war / cold war period show what he thought the really important political impact of science was. As far as I can see, these comments did not loose their significance

Ilmu Akuntansi dan Kepentingan Manusia

This paper aims to describe and explain the link between science and accounting with human interests. A famous philosopher, Jurgen Habermas (1990) states that science can not be separated from human interests. Accounting science is part of actions science that aimed to improving people\u27s lives. Accounting theory used to predict and explain a phenomenon, that is related to human interests. Accounting and financial reporting environment is very complex because of the accounting product is information, an influential and important commodity. Accounting science has an interest for various parties such as, management, creditors, investors, governments, communities, and others. Besides accounting also has interests in various legal, environmental, ethics, public and others.Key words: science, accounting, and human interestsAbstractThis paper aims to describe and explain the link between science and accounting with human interests. A famous philosopher, Jurgen Habermas (1990) states that science can not be separated from human interests. Accounting science is part of actions science that aimed to improving people\u27s lives. Accounting theory used to predict and explain a phenomenon, that is related to human interests.Accounting and financial reporting environment is very complex because of the accounting product isinformation, an influential and important commodity. Accounting science has an interest for variousparties such as, management, creditors, investors, governments, communities, and others. Besidesaccounting also has interests in various legal, environmental, ethics, public and others

From Cells to Cell Theory: What Would Kuhn Say?

Cells as we know them today were discovered in the 1600s by Robert Hooke. A couple hundred years later, scientists came to a final conclusion about how cells arose. The theory of spontaneous generation of life was abandoned in favor of cell theory, the idea that all cells come from preexisting cells. Louis Pasteur was an important thinker and experimentalist in this transition. Furthermore, the implications of this transition were far reaching and can even be seen today with the constant use of HeLa cells in scientific research. But what would Thomas Kuhn, philosopher of science, have to say about this transition? Does this transition fit into his conception of a paradigm shift? Does the transition alter the scientific imagination in such a way as to transform the world of scientists and alter the cultural perspective? If Kuhn was still around, he definitely would agree that this transition meets all his requirements for an effective paradigm change

On Nietzsche’s Concept of ‘European Nihilism’

In Nietzsche, ‘European nihilism’ has at its core valuelessness, meaninglessness and senselessness. This article argues that Nietzsche is not replacing God with the nothing, but rather that he regards ‘European nihilism’ as an ‘in-between state’ that is necessary for getting beyond Christian morality. An important characteristic of a Nietzschean philosopher is his ‘will to responsibility’. One of his responsibilities consists of the creation of the values and the concepts that are needed in order to overcome the intermediate state of nihilism. For prevailing over nihilism in science, Nietzsche suggests drawing on philosophy for the creation of values and drawing on art in order to create beautiful surfaces that are based on these values. He regards science as a cultural system that rests on contingent grounds. Therefore, his work is concerned with the responsible construction of the narratives of science in such a way that they enhance agency and promote a life-affirming future

Review of Paradox and Platitude in Wittgenstein's Philosophy by David Pears (2006)(review revised 2019)

Pears is an eminent philosopher, notable among W scholars for his “The False Prison: a study of the development of Wittgenstein’s philosophy” in 2 volumes published 20 years ago. Based on these facts I expected some deep insights into W in the current volume. There were certainly some good points but overall it was profoundly disappointing. All of behavioral science is about our innate human nature and since W was the first to elucidate the axioms of our universal psychology, I expected this to be front and center in a work written during the golden age of evolutionary and cognitive psychology and with much good recent work on W appearing. However, one would never guess from this book that W or philosophy had any connection with psychology or indeed that there is such a thing as evolutionary psychology. Hence, I cannot recommend Pears works and instead provide a framework for rationality totally lacking in Pears (and most writing on human behavior). Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019