Nature of Science:

1. Empiricism (Aristotle, Locke, Berkeley, Hume) Observation & experience ;Rejects, priori reasoning
2. Logical Positivism (Vienna Circle) Confirmation of scientific theory by induction/deduction
3. Karl Popper’s falsification-All theories should have the nature of falsification.
4. Lakatos ‘research programs’;An alternative theory of paradigm
5. Fayerabend’s theory of Anarchistic history;Based on humanitarian ground, doesn’t believe in paradigm or standard methods.
6. The Bayesian approach;Confirmation of new scientific knowledge influenced by previous success probabilities

Empiricism:

The initial thought in the philosophy of science was mostly dominated by the concept of empiricism. The empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (Chalmers, 1999). The idea of empiricism is that the science is to be based on what we can see, hear and touch rather than on personal opinions or speculative imaginations. Based on Aristotelian theory of tabula rosa, which state that the human mind is like a blank table and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Therefore, empiricist claims that the science is methodologically empirical in nature. Some of the classical empiricists were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume (Godfrey-Smith, 2003).

Logical Positivism:

It is a school of philosophy that combines empiricism with rationalism incorporating mathematical logics known as deductions in epistemology.Logical positivism has advocated the observation based theory should be tested through experiments. One drawback of logical positivism is the logical induction. Logical positivism has put forward the concept of generalization through induction. This suggests that the appropriate facts can be established in science by large number of observations under a wide variety of conditions, and there should not be any conflict with the derived law (Chalmers, 1999). It means replication of experiments many times to make it a standard theory.

Karl Popper’s falsification:

Karl popper was sharply against the idea of logical positivism or induction for generalization of the theory. Therefore, Poo\pper formulated his demarcation criterion for distinguishing science from non-science, where the criterion pertains to falsifiability. The falsificationist sees science as a set of hypothesis that is tentatively proposed with the aim of accurately describing or accounting for the behavior of some aspect of the world or universe. There is one fundamental condition that any hypothesis or system of hypothesis must satisfy if it is to be granted the status of scientific law or theory, a hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Kuhn’s Paradigm:

Inductivist and falsificationist accounts of science were challenged in a major way by Thoman Kuhn. He came to believe that traditional accounts of science, whether inductivist or falsificaniost, do not bear comparison with historical evidence. Kuhn’s account of science was subsequently developed as an attempt to give a theory more in keeping with the historical situation as he saw it. A key feature of his theory is the emphasis placed on the revolutionary character of scientific progress, where revolution involves the abandonment of one theoretical structure and its replacement by another, incompatible one (Godfrey-Smith, 2003).

Lakatos ‘research programs’:

Lakatos like Kuhn, saw the merit in portraying scientific activity as taking place in a framework, and coined the phrase “research program”. According to Lakatos some laws or principles are more basic than others and that can be the defining feature of a science. A science can then be seen as the programmatic development of the implications of the fundamental principles.

Fayerabend’s theory of Anarchistic history:

Fayerabend from his humanitarian point of view supports his anarchistic theory of science on grounds that it increases the freedom of scientists by removing them from methodological constraints and, more generally, leaves individuals the freedom to choose between science and other forms of knowledge. A central problem with Feyerabend’s notion of freedom stems from the degree to which it is entirely negative, in the sense that freedom is understood as freedom from constraints.

The Bayesian approach:

Bayes’ theorem is about conditional probabilities, probabilities for propositions that depend on the evidence bearing on those propositions. Those probabilities will be subject to change by the punter in the light of new evidence. Bayes’ theorem is a theorem prescribing how probabilities are to be changed in the light of new evidence.

Paul Feyerabend (1975)- Against Method

Paul Feyerabend (1975)- Against Method

• Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.
• This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
• For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counter-inductively.
• The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual.
• There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.
• No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress. It is also a first step in our attempts to find the principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
• As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth. The argument involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with observations that it needs a special effort to realise their existence and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces them by others.
• The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly abstract observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of anamnesis). They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of circular inertia.
• Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate the direction of future research.
• In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, he claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However, he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected to give a true picture of the sky.
• Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct, indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have helped to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was refuted by simple tests.
• On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one refuted view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because of his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of learning connected with them.
• Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the 'uneven development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science. Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past.
• Galileo's method works in other fields as well. For example, it can be used to eliminate the existing arguments against materialism, and to put an end to the philosophical mind/body problem (the corresponding scientific problems remain untouched, however).
• The results obtained so far suggest abolishing the distinction between a context of discovery and a context of justification and disregarding the related distinction between observational terms and theoretical terms. Neither distinction plays a role in scientific practice. Attempts to enforce them would have disastrous consequences.
• Finally, the discussion in Chapters 6-13 shows that Popper's version of Mill's pluralism is not in agreement with scientific practice and would destroy science as we know it. Given science, reason cannot be universal and unreason cannot be excluded. This feature of science calls for an anarchistic epistemology. The realisation that science is not sacrosanct, and that the debate between science and myth has ceased without having been won by either side, further strengthens the case for anarchism.
• Even the ingenious attempt of Lakatos to construct a methodology that (a) does not issue orders and yet (b) puts restrictions upon our knowledge-increasing activities, does not escape this conclusion. For Lakatos' philosophy appears liberal only because it is an anarchism in disguise. And his standards which are abstracted from modern science cannot be regarded as neutral arbiters in the issue between modern science and Aristotelian science, myth, magic, religion, etc.
• Moreover, these standards, which involve a comparison of content classes, are not always applicable. The content classes of certain theories are incomparable in the sense that none of the usual logical relations (inclusion, exclusion, overlap) can be said to hold between them. This occurs when we compare myths with science. It also occurs in the most advanced, most general and therefore most mythological parts of science itself.
• Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favor of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized.

Seni ne kadar çok sevdiğimi,biri seni sevince anlayacaksın...

"Heyecan yüklü bir bulutun yüreğinize inişini izlersiniz önce...

Sonra,o bulutun size aşık olan insanın verdiği huzurun yansıması olduğunu anlarsınız.

...Evet! Biri size aşıktır.

Sizi Seviyordur.

Bakışlarında kendinizi görebiliyorsunuzdur.

Kaldırımda daha dik yürüyorsunuzdur artık...

Akşamlar daha erken geliyordur mesela...

Sabahlar daha geç...

Sevilmek ve aşık olunmak gücünüze güç katmaya başlamıştır,size enerji veriyordur.

Hep arasın istersiniz.

Arar.

Hep kıskansın istersiniz.

Kıskanır.

"Seni Seviyorum" diye biten mesajlarıyla doludur cep telefonunuzun hafızası.

Adı, her aklınıza geldiğinde kalbiniz hızlı hızlı atmaya başlar.

Başkalarının gözüne uzun uzun bakmayı bile ona ihanet zannetmeye başlarsınız.

Böyle geçip gider günler.

Sonra onu daha az düşünmeye,hayatınızı dolduran uğraşların içine daha çok girmeye başlarsınız.

Günlük yaşantınızın içindeki meşguliyetler,aşkın biraz daha beri yanına iter sizi.

Ama siz bunun farkında değilsinizdir.

"Neden aramıyorsun?"lar ,"Sonra ararmısın?"lara,"Seni seviyorum."lu mesajlara yanıtınız "s.s"lere dönüşür.

Hayatın hayhuyu içinde kaçırıverirsiniz size aşık olan kişinin aslında ne kadar kıymetli bir yar olduğunu.

Uzun zaman direnir aşığınız.

Ama hayatın hep arka fonunda kalmak bir gün onu da yorar.

Geldiği gibi, sessizce çekilir ve gider hayatınızdan...

Yer değiştirmiş olan alışkanlıklarınız hemen hissettirmez yokluğunu.

Zamanla ağırlaşır,zamanla koymaya başlar eksikliği.

Sonra "aman Allah'ım! Ben ne yaptım?"lar " pelesenk olur dilinize.

Ama "o" artık elinizi uzattığınız yerde değildir.

Ya ağır yaralarla yada hafif kanamalarla geçirirsiniz bu süreci.

Zaman,alır ve ötelere sürükler sizi.

Bir zamanlar anlamadan yaşadığınız aşk,acısını çok sonra,sizi bir istimlak gibi kuşatarak yaşatır.

Ama o artık yoktur.

Belki de bir zamanlar sizin kıymetini bilmediğiniz o aşkı,şimdi başkalarına sunuyordur.

Kim bilir?...

Herkes kendi yolunda yürür...

ve bilirsiniz ki,her "aşk yitiğine" yeni bir yol vardır nasılsa.

Mühim olan,o yeni yollarda eski aşkların tecrübesiyle nasıl yürüdüğünüzdür.

Hayat devam edecek.

Herşey unutulmaya yüz tutacak.

Belki çok daha yakışıklılarını,çok daha güzellerini seveceksiniz.

Ama...

Ama hiçbir zaman aşka o kadar saf teslim olmayacaksınız.

Başka omuzlarda hep o giden için ağlayacak,başka şehirlerde,başka aşkların peşinde koşacaksınız.

Yine seveceksiniz,yine sevileceksiniz.

Fakat,her şeyde bir eksikle...

Kimse sizi onun gibi sevmeyecektir...

Her gelen eksik gelecek,her giden size onu getirecektir.

Meğer ne kadar da zormuş değerince sevilmek diyeceksiniz.

Başkalarının size aşk diye sunduğu sevgi kırıntılarını sonsuzluğa uğurlarken,bir zamanlar size biad eden sevgilinin kıymetini buruk bir pişmanlıkla anlayacaksınız.

Tam da böyle bir zamanda o'nun son mesajını hatırlayacaksınız.

"Seni ne kadar çok sevdiğimi,biri seni sevince anlayacaksın..."

Ressamın Hayali

Ellerim çaresiz düşüvermiş yanlarıma

Kopkoyu bir sis içindeyim.

Alınyazımdan kopardığım her anın

Sarhoşluğu titriyor dizlerimde.

Yüzün gözlerimin önünde binlerce tablo

Her fırça darbesi bir ruh gibi üflenmiş.

Sokağa çıkma yasağında kurutulmuş gül yaprakları,

Biraz yeşil, sıcak gün ışığında bekletilmiş,

Düşüyor omuzlarından

Roman kahramanlarından çalınmış

Eflatun bir parıltı.

Her renk bir başka ışık gibi süzülüyor,

Dolaşıyorsun avuçlarımda, parmak uçlarımda.

Aldığım kokuda Konstantinopolis oluyorsun,

Tenimi ısıtan ılık rüzgârda İstanbul.

Seni bulmak istiyorum;

Karanlık sokaklarda kaybolarak,

Boğazın yakamozlu yerlerinde şiirler yazıp,

Salıncağın altındaki çukur gibi azalarak.

Uzanıveriyorsun gözlerimin önünde

Buğday tarlalarından vapurlar geçiyor

Dalgaları neredeyse denize vuracak.

Elime bir kıymık gibi batıyor

Gecenin aydınlığında artık görülmeyen yıldızların

Gözlerinden yansıyıp yüreğimi burkan

Gümüşi ve hüzünlü şarkısı.

Zeytin ağacının dibindeki

Huzur gibi düşen gölgen için

Hangi ışığın önüne koysam seni bilemiyorum;

Ama bildiğim bir şey var

Seni artık hayal bile edemiyorum.

Bir Ten, Bir An’ı

Bir insan teninde bulmak tüm renkleri, tek bir an’da!

Bir tende neler bulabilirdi insan?

Bir dokunuş, bir his, bir sıcaklık, bir varlık, bir ülke, bir nefes, bir koku, bir uzaklık, bir kardeşlik ya da aşk, bir unutuş, bir başlangıç, bir bitiriş, bir insan…

Peki ya hepsini tek bir tende bulabilmek nasıl bir duyguydu?

Tek bir dokunuşta; ruhunu hissetmek, gözlerini kapatıp sadece tenini dinlemek, hiç bilmediği bir dilde yeni aşklar duymak, kaybolmak, uzun bir yola çıkmak ya da belki de kendini o tende yeniden bulmak, yeniden duymak…

Tek bir dokunuşta; yeni renkler keşfetmek, dünyanın tüm renklerini değiştirmek, kış ortasında yeşili giyinmek, yaz ortasında kara bürünmek, üşüyen tenini değil onun nefesini daha da hissetmek, gökyüzünde uçup giden bir bulutun süzülüşünü hergün ayrı bir renkte izlemek, her sabah güneşin kızıllığında ruhun varlığını iliklerinde hissetmek, sisli bir havada birlikte yürürken, onun gidişine, tekrar kavuşmayı hayal ederek sevinmek…

Bir ten neler katabilirdi insana?

Yeni yollar, yeni insanlar, yeni sesler, yeni diller, yeni hissedişler. Dünyanın bir ucunda, kendini evinde hissetmenin huzurunu onun ellerinde bulmak, ruhunu yıllar önce orada unuttuğun bir yere geri dönmenin farkına varışını onunla keşfetmek, dilini öğrenmek, sesini özümsemek, tenini bir de onun sesinden hissetmek…

Bir tenin ötesinde ne vardı ellerinde?

Varlık , gerçek, kavuşma, yıllar, sevgi, benlik ya da bir hiç!

Kim bilecekti ondan başka?

Kim duyacaktı benden başka?

Elleri benimleydi ama benim değillerdi, teni benimleydi ama benim değildi.

Gitti!

Sırtında çantası, elinde yırtık cüzdanı, masamda unutulmuş çakmağı, birkaç notu…

Ben de bırakıp bir ülkeyi, bir dili, bir hissi, bir dokunuşu, bir an’ı , bir teni, bir benliği, bir keşfi, güzel olan birçok şeyi, söylenemeyenleri…

Gitti!

Elimde çakmağı, birkaç notu, tenimde kokusu…

Terk edip bir ülkeyi, bir dili, bir hissi, bir dokunuşu, bir an’ı, bir teni, bir benliği, bir keşfi, güzel olan birçok şeyi, söyleyemediklerimi…

I feel so blessed!

I'm sure you are wondering, why does she feel blessed? Well this is why, i have been taking a lot of time out to just think, think about my life, think about my family and to think about what i really want in life...what has recently happened with my grandmother and my aunt and all that had really got me thinking about taking things for granted and never knowing what is going to happen next. I realized you never know when that thing or Person will be taken out of your life. I feel blessed because i have so many people in my life that love, care and cherish me for the person i am! I have learned a lot about my relationship with others as well.

I needed to move away to truly find myself, and what i have found? I proud independent women that know she can make it through any situation that may come her way! Women that admires those in her life, women that cherishes every moment she is alive! I am that women, i have learned that no matter what is thrown my way i will take it on! I can honestly say that i am proud of the person i am, was and am becoming! I love myself! Not to long ago someone very close to me told me that you cannot truly love someone until you truly love yourself, i was not sure how to truly love myself and this person told me that i would figure it out if i really wanted to! Well i figured it out and now i am so full of love for everything and everyone around me! I am very happy! So now that i have blabbered on and on...i think i got out what i needed to! Hope i didn't confuse anyone too much!! Love you All!!