英语论文网

dge. Language is a tool for thinking; a very important tool, but only a tool. Also, both agree that science, thinking, and culture-or humanity in general-forms a distinctive realm or eco-niche for human evoloution. Culture is not a mere organ like the brain or eye but forms an eco-niche for human physical or biological evolution. According to Popper's theory, culture is part of world three which interacts causally with the physical realm. According to Polanyi's theory, culture forms an upper hierachical level that has its own operational principles but whose principles are conditioned or restricted by the lower levels. Hence, both Popper and Polanyi agree that human culture is distinctive but have alternative views on how human culture interacts with the other realms. The difficult part of the integration of their views is that both seem to disagree over the nature of scientific discovery and the role of methodolgy. For Popper, articulate questions, theories and argument is what constitutes science. For Polanyi, personal knowledge or commitment to one's views in the face of difficulties is what constitutes science. Popper seems to be for critical detachment; and Polanyi seems to be for a-critical attachment. However, I will argue that both theories of science are interdependent and need to be integrated in order to fully explain how science creates knowledge.

There are three questions concerning my attempt to integrate the views of Popper and Polanyi with respect to the two cultures problem that I will address in the following:

1. How does science create knowledge?

2. How do science and art form distinctive cultures?

3. How do scientific and artistic creation allow for breaking the framework barrier?

I. How Does Science Create Knowledge?

Popper and generally critical rationalism holds that knowledge develops through a process of conjecture and refutation-question, alternative theories, and critical discussion. However, this viewpoint best answers the question of how knowledge as objective grows. This approach intentionally does not address the question of how people produce alternative theories. The question of the genesis of theories, and criticisms, is a question of psychology or sociology or history as opposed to a question of Philosophy. Philosophy poses questions about the logic of knowledge: whether scientific inference is logically valid. Popper solves the problem of induction where generalizations are invalidly induced from singular statements by arguing that scientific inference is deductive not inductive. Scientific inference uses modus tollens. General theories are refuted by singular statements when predictions are disconfirmed. The problem with this approach is that when we concentrate on the objective dimension of knowledge, we really cannot explain the growth of knowledge. Though we want to explain the growth of knowledge, by focussing exclusively on the objective side, without looking at how individuals produce theories, we only explain the structure of knowledge, not its dynamism.

Polanyi looks at the dynamism of science: how do scientists find new theories? Scientist generate new theories by applying their tacit knowledge. The explicit or objective dimension of scientific knowledge can only be understood from the framework of a body of tacit or personal knowledge