Advertisement

Science is Based on Certain Assumptions

  • Aaro Toomela
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Psychology book series (BRIEFSPSYCHOL)

Abstract

In this chapter, following the works of several philosophers of the more distant past, four Doubts and corresponding to them four Assumptions that underlie any science are defined. The advanced science has to assume: (1) the world external to mind exists; (2) this external world is not chaotic, it is organized; (3) the external world is knowable, including the world beyond appearances; and (4) the external organized world is only material.

Keywords

Assumptions of any science Ontological assumptions Epistemological assumptions Epistemology of psychology 

References

  1. Aristotle. (1941a). Metaphysics (Metaphysica). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 681–926). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1941b). On the soul (De Anima). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 533–603). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1941c). Physics (Physica). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 213–394). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. (1984a). Metaphysics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 2, pp. 1552–1728). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle. (1984b). On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 2, pp. 1539–1551). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle. (1984c). On the soul (De Anima). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1, pp. 641–692). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carrier, L. S. (2006). Aristotelian materialism. Philosophia, 34, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Descartes, R. (1985a). Discourse on the method of rightly conducting one’s reason and seeking the truth in the sciences. (Originally published in 1637). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 111–151). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Descartes, R. (1985b). Meditations on first philosophy. (Originally published in 1641). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 3–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Descartes, R. (1985c). Objections and replies. (Originally published in 1641–1642). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 63–397). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Descartes, R. (1985d). Principles of philosophy. (Originally published in 1644 in Latin and in 1647 in French). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 179–291). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Descartes, R. (1985e). Rules for the direction of the mind. (Originally written in about 1628, published in 1684). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 9–78). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Descartes, R. (1985f). The world. (Originally written in 1629–1633, published in 1664). In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 81–98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dilworth, C. (2006). The metaphysics of science. An account of modern science in terms of principles, laws and theories (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Engels, F. (1907). Anti-Duehring. (originally published in 1878). In A. Lewis (Ed.), Landmarks of scientific socialism: Anti-Duehring (pp. 23–260). Chicago: Charles A. Kerr.Google Scholar
  16. Engels, F. (1987). Dialectics of nature. (Originally written in 1873–1882). In N. Rudenko & Y. Vorotnikova (Eds.), Karl Marx, Frederick Engels. Collected works (Vol. 25, pp. 313–590). New York, NY: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Engels, F. (1996). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. (Originally published in 1888). Beijing: Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gauch, H. G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gouldner, A. W. (1980). The two Marxisms. Contradictions and anomalies in the development of theory. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Harre, R. (2002). Cognitive science. A philosophical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). Science of logic. (Originally published in 1831). In H. D. Lewis (Ed.), Hegel’s science of logic. New York, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  22. Hegel, G. W. F. (2005). The phenomenology of mind: Volume I. (Originally published in 1807). New York, NY: Cosimo Classics.Google Scholar
  23. Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences. Philosophy of mind. (Originally published in 1830). In W. Wallace (Ed.), Georg H. W. Hegel. Philosophy of mind. Translated from the encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences. New York, NY: Cosimo Classics.Google Scholar
  24. Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding. (Originally published in 1748). In T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.), David Hume. An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human nature. (Originally published in 1739-1740). In D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton (Eds.), David Hume. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (1997). Critique of practical reason. (Originally published in 1788). In M. Gregor (Ed.), Immanuel Kant. Critique of practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason. (Originally published in 1787). In N. K. Smith (Ed.), Critique of pure reason. Immanuel Kant. Revised second edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Levine, M. W. (2000). Levine and Shefner’s fundamentals of sensation and perception (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Long, A. A. (2006). From Epicurus to Epictetus. In Studies in Hellenistic and Roman philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marx, K. (1981). Capital. A critique of political economy. Volume three. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Toomela, A. (2007). Culture of science: Strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(1), 6–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9004-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Toomela, A. (2008). Kurt Lewin’s contribution to the methodology of psychology: From past to future skipping the present. In J. Clegg (Ed.), The observation of human systems. Lessons from the history of anti-Reductionistic empirical psychology (pp. 101–116). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Toomela, A. (2010). Poverty of modern mainstream psychology in autobiography. Reflections on A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Volume IX. Culture and Psychology, 16(1), 127–144.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X09344892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toomela, A. (2016a). Kultuur, kõne ja Minu Ise. (Culture, speech, and My Self). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
  36. Toomela, A. (2016b). Six meanings of the history of science: The case of psychology. In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 47–73). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toomela, A. (2017). Minu Ise areng: Inimlapsest Inimeseks. (development of my self: From the human child to the human.). Tartu: Väike Vanker.Google Scholar
  38. Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaro Toomela
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Natural Sciences and HealthTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations