From logicism to historicism,philosophers of science have put forward different standards of scientific demarcation according to their own scientific views.However,these standards encounter problems either in theory o...From logicism to historicism,philosophers of science have put forward different standards of scientific demarcation according to their own scientific views.However,these standards encounter problems either in theory or in practice,and then fall into difficulties,thus moving towards relativism.Philosophy of scientific practice has reversed the previous image of science with scientific practice and pointed out the temporality,dynamics and locality of science.Therefore,the scientific boundary under this approach also has the above characteristics.Besides,the scientific boundary constructed by the scientific image is developmental and features temporary stability and effectiveness.Scientific demarcation is not a purely epistemological problem,but also a practical one.展开更多
The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct.On a broader scope,this ...The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct.On a broader scope,this research explains what science is,why some scientists despite good intention,often get it wrong,and why it takes so long(decades)to correct these errors.Science is a human behaviour that consists of the identification of a problem based on the correct application of prior knowledge,the development of a method to best resolve or test the problem,completion of these methods to acquire results,and then a correct interpretation of the results.If these steps are done correctly there is an increased probability(no guarantee)that the outcome is likely to be correct.Thomas Kuhn proposed that you can understand what science is from how it has been performed,and from his essays he revealed a very dysfunctional form of science that he called‘normal’(due the preponderance of its presence)science.Conversely,Karl Popper was adamant that the practice of‘normal’science revealed numerous flaws that deviate from fundamental principles that makes science,science.Collectively,the evidence reveals that within the sports medicine and health sciences,as with all disciplines,errors in science are more frequent than you might expect.There is an urgent need to improve how we educate and train scientists to prevent the pursuit of‘normal’science and the harm it imparts on humanity.展开更多
An important epistemological problem has been faced by Exercise Physiologists.On one hand,one theory explains the fatigue through a ceiling effect of oxygen uptake.On the other hand,the new theory proposes that an enc...An important epistemological problem has been faced by Exercise Physiologists.On one hand,one theory explains the fatigue through a ceiling effect of oxygen uptake.On the other hand,the new theory proposes that an encephalon mechanism would stop the effort before a catastrophic homeostasis failure.Many physiologists have looked for evidence to support their favourite theory even though the induction logic problem does not allow to prove whether truth is discovered;however,it is possible to prove that it does not occur.When some researchers fail to test their hypotheses,they use relativism to bring up their theories again.Noakes and his colleagues have based their theory on relativism,because it is impossible to refute by empirical observation.It also doesn't explain all phenomena that the oldest Hill's theory is able to explain.Noakes's theory isn't more accurate in its previsions.Noakes did not check whether the oxygen uptake plateau occurs in suitable tests to measure on the mouth what happens in the muscles.Finally,it doesn't propose new tests for the encephalon role during maximal effort,as that is expected in scientific work.For all of these reasons,it is possible to conclude there are no advantages in switching to the“Central Governor”theory.展开更多
文摘From logicism to historicism,philosophers of science have put forward different standards of scientific demarcation according to their own scientific views.However,these standards encounter problems either in theory or in practice,and then fall into difficulties,thus moving towards relativism.Philosophy of scientific practice has reversed the previous image of science with scientific practice and pointed out the temporality,dynamics and locality of science.Therefore,the scientific boundary under this approach also has the above characteristics.Besides,the scientific boundary constructed by the scientific image is developmental and features temporary stability and effectiveness.Scientific demarcation is not a purely epistemological problem,but also a practical one.
文摘The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct.On a broader scope,this research explains what science is,why some scientists despite good intention,often get it wrong,and why it takes so long(decades)to correct these errors.Science is a human behaviour that consists of the identification of a problem based on the correct application of prior knowledge,the development of a method to best resolve or test the problem,completion of these methods to acquire results,and then a correct interpretation of the results.If these steps are done correctly there is an increased probability(no guarantee)that the outcome is likely to be correct.Thomas Kuhn proposed that you can understand what science is from how it has been performed,and from his essays he revealed a very dysfunctional form of science that he called‘normal’(due the preponderance of its presence)science.Conversely,Karl Popper was adamant that the practice of‘normal’science revealed numerous flaws that deviate from fundamental principles that makes science,science.Collectively,the evidence reveals that within the sports medicine and health sciences,as with all disciplines,errors in science are more frequent than you might expect.There is an urgent need to improve how we educate and train scientists to prevent the pursuit of‘normal’science and the harm it imparts on humanity.
文摘An important epistemological problem has been faced by Exercise Physiologists.On one hand,one theory explains the fatigue through a ceiling effect of oxygen uptake.On the other hand,the new theory proposes that an encephalon mechanism would stop the effort before a catastrophic homeostasis failure.Many physiologists have looked for evidence to support their favourite theory even though the induction logic problem does not allow to prove whether truth is discovered;however,it is possible to prove that it does not occur.When some researchers fail to test their hypotheses,they use relativism to bring up their theories again.Noakes and his colleagues have based their theory on relativism,because it is impossible to refute by empirical observation.It also doesn't explain all phenomena that the oldest Hill's theory is able to explain.Noakes's theory isn't more accurate in its previsions.Noakes did not check whether the oxygen uptake plateau occurs in suitable tests to measure on the mouth what happens in the muscles.Finally,it doesn't propose new tests for the encephalon role during maximal effort,as that is expected in scientific work.For all of these reasons,it is possible to conclude there are no advantages in switching to the“Central Governor”theory.
