THE AIM OF SCIENCE: A PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION

Year 2025, Issue: 40, 281 - 301, 28.05.2025

Mustafa Efe Ateş

https://doi.org/10.53844/flsf.1589555

Abstract

One widely discussed topic in the philosophy of science literature is the aim of science. The common view holds that science has a particular aim, which justifies it as a rational activity. Those who are committed to this common view can be grouped into two different camps. One camp of philosophers defends the view that science has a single fundamental aim, while the other camp argues that science has multiple aims. Both views have their merits, but they also have weaknesses in certain aspects. The weaknesses in these views, in one way or another, indicate the need for an alternative approach. In this paper, I present an alternative perspective that rejects the notion of aims, advocating for an aimless conception of science. In defending an aimless conception of science, I suggest that an alternative form of rationality can be applied to scientific activity, without compromising rationality in general.

Keywords

aim of science, aimless science, rationality, philosophy of science

BİLİMİN AMACI: FELSEFİ BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Abstract

Bilim felsefesi literatüründe çokça tartışılan konulardan biri de bilimin amacıdır. Yaygın görüşe göre bilimin belirli bir amaca sahip olması, onun rasyonel bir etkinlik oluşunu temellendirmektedir. Bu yaygın görüşü benimseyenleri iki ayrı kampta toplamak mümkündür. Bir grup felsefeci bilimin tek bir temel amacı olduğunu savunurken, diğer grup bilimin birden fazla amacı olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Her iki tarafın görüşlerinin de haklı yönleri olmakla birlikte, bazı noktalarda zayıflıkları da bulunmaktadır. Bu zayıflıklar bir şekilde alternatif bir yaklaşıma ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu makalede amaç kavramını reddeden, amaçsız bir bilim anlayışını savunan, alternatif bir bakış açısı sunuyorum. Amaçsız bir bilim anlayışını savunurken, genel olarak rasyonaliteden taviz verilmesine gerek olmadığını ileri sürerek, alternatif bir rasyonalite biçiminin bilimsel etkinliğe uygulanabileceğini öneriyorum.

Keywords

bilimin amacı, amaçsız bilim, rasyonalite, bilim felsefesi

References

• Bird, Alexander. Knowing Science, New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
• Blumenthal, Geoffrey & Ladyman, James. “The development of problems within the phlogiston theories, 1766–1791,” Foundations of Chemistry 19 (2017): 241–280.
• Brock, Stuart & Mares, Edwin. Realism and Anti-Realism, Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007.
• Chirimuuta, Mazviita. “Prediction versus understanding in computationally enhanced neuroscience,” Synthese 199 (2021): 767–790.
• Cooper, Neil. “The Aims of Science,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 57 (1964): 328-333.
• de Regt, Henk W. “Discussion Note: Making Sense of Understanding,” Philosophy of Science 71, no 1 (2004): 98–109.
• de Regt, Henk W. Understanding Scientific Understanding, New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Friedman, Michael. “Explanation and Scientific Understanding,” The Journal of Philosophy 71, no 1 (1974): 5–19.
• Giere, Ronald. “Scientific Rationality as Instrumental Rationality,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20(1989): 377-384.
• Hempel, Carl G. “Valuation and Objectivity in Science,” içinde Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983, 73-100.
• Kelly, Thomas. “Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66, no 3 (2003): 612-640.
• Laudan, Larry. İlerleme ve Sorunları, çeviren T. Atmaca & Z. Güncüm, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2021.
• Newton-Smith, William H. The Rationality of Science, London & New York: Routledge, 1981.
• Nozick, Robert. The Nature of Rationality, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993.
• Popper, Karl R. Conjectures and Refutations, New York: Routledge, 2002.
• Popper, Karl R. Realism and the Aims of Science, New York: Routledge, 1996.
• Potochnik, Angela. “The diverse aims of science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 53: 2015, 71-80.
• Redhead, Michael. “The Intelligibility of the Universe,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 48 (2001): 73-90.
• Resnik, David B. “Do scientific aims justify methodological rules?” Erkenntnis, 38 (1993): 223-232.
• Rowbottom, Darrell P. “Aimless science,” Synthese 191 (2014): 1211–1221.
• Rowbottom, Darrell P. “Evolutionary Epistemology and the Aim of Science,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88:2 (2010): 209-225.
• Siegel, Harvey. “Epistemic Rationality Not (Just) Instrumental” Metaphilosophy 50, no 5 (2019): 608-630.
• Soler, Léna., Zwart, Sjoerd., Israel-Jost, Vincent & Lynch, Michael. “Introduction,” içinde Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science, ed. Léna Soler et al., New York: Routledge, 2104, 1-43.
• Tambolo, Luca. “A tale of three theories: Feyerabend and Popper on progress and the aim of science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 51 (2015): 33-41.
• Toulmin, Stephen. Foresight and Understanding, New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
• Trout, J. D. “Scientific Explanation and the Sense of Understanding,” Philosophy of Science 69, no 2 (2002): 212–233.
• van Fraassen, Bas C. “Gideon Rosen on Constructive Empiricism,” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 74 (2): 1994, 179-192.